612 F. App'x 41
2d Cir.2015Background
- Cohane, a former SUNY Buffalo coach, challenged NCAA and MAC investigations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a stigma-plus due process violation and tortious interference with contracts.
- The NCAA issued a show-cause order; the order was stayed for its term and later modified to end with the Appeals Committee’s decision, limiting Cohane’s athletically related duties if employed elsewhere.
- Cohane argued that the show-cause order and inclusion of violations in NCAA personnel files imposed a state-imposed burden impairing his prospects for future coaching positions.
- He claimed the NCAA and MAC defendants, along with SUNY Buffalo's personnel actions, acted together with the state to violate due process and interfere with contracts.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Cohane appealed, raising only stigma-plus due process and tortious interference theories.
- The Second Circuit reviews summary judgment de novo and affirms when there is no genuine dispute on essential elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stigma-plus due process viability | Cohane argues show-cause burden and records constitute a state-imposed plus. | Defendants contend no state action or burden; reputational loss alone is insufficient. | No stigma-plus; no state-imposed burden; affirmed. |
| State action through private entities | Private NCAA and SUNY Buffalo acted with state to violate rights. | No shared goal or state involvement; private actions not state action. | Insufficient evidence of joint state action; affirmed. |
| Tortious interference with contracts | Cohane argues MAC defendants interfered with his SUNY Buffalo resignation contract. | Resignation contract未breach; MAC defendants did not induce breach. | No genuine dispute of material fact;_MAC defendants entitled to summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2d Cir. 2004) (stigma-plus framework; requirement of a tangible plus to due process)
- Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005) (plus must be a specific adverse action restricting liberty)
- Sadallah v. City of Utica, 383 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2004) (deleterious effects from a sullied reputation alone are insufficient)
- Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2d Cir. 1994) (normal reputational consequences do not constitute a stigma-plus)
- Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc., 88 N.Y.2d 413 (1996) (elements of tortious interference with contract)
- Segal v. City of New York, 459 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Sybalski v. Indep. Grp. Home Living Program, Inc., 546 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2008) (state action in private party involvement standard)