David McCollough v. Noblesville Schools and Jeff Bryant
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 399
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- David McCollough was a 20‑year head boys basketball coach for Noblesville High School; his written term coaching contract expired March 24, 2014.
- On January 28, 2014 an incident occurred in practice where McCollough threw a basketball in frustration; some witnesses say the ball grazed a player’s fingertips.
- School principal Jeff Bryant placed McCollough on administrative leave, and McCollough worked with the district’s PR director to draft a public statement that included the word “allegedly.” The version released omitted "allegedly," which McCollough contends converted his statement into an admission he hit a player.
- McCollough was not recommended for the next season’s coaching position; he applied to ~31 jobs without success and sued Noblesville Schools and Bryant alleging defamation, IIED, negligence, breach of contract, tortious interference, and a §1983 due‑process violation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims except defamation; both sides appealed (plaintiff appeals grants; defendants cross‑appeal denial on defamation).
- The Court of Appeals affirms: affirms dismissal of IIED, breach of contract, tortious interference, negligence, and waiver of due‑process claim; reverses nothing and holds defamation denial was proper for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IIED: was conduct "extreme and outrageous"? | Bryant’s failure to investigate and altering/publishing McCollough’s statement was outrageous and intended to harm. | Even if intentional, conduct was not beyond the pale required for IIED. | Court: No IIED as a matter of law; summary judgment for defendants affirmed. |
| Breach of contract: was there an implied contract promising reappointment? | Continued performance and recognition after contract expiration created an implied contract promising renewal. | Coaching agreements were term contracts with no promise of continued employment; no reasonable expectation of renewal. | Court: No enforceable promise of continued employment; summary judgment for defendants affirmed. |
| Tortious interference: did defendants wrongfully interfere with contractual/business relationships? | Bryant’s conduct and the published statement caused loss of current and prospective employment. | No independent illegal act; for contract interference no valid continuing contract existed; defamation alone insufficient. | Court: Claims fail as matter of law; summary judgment for defendants affirmed. |
| Defamation: did publication of altered statement state a defamatory imputation and was it made with actual malice? | Removing "allegedly" changed meaning to an admission that he hit a player; publication harmed reputation and raises fact issue on malice. | Statement reflects McCollough’s admissions (threw ball, apologized) and was accurate; no malice. | Court: Genuine factual disputes exist as to defamatory meaning and actual malice; summary judgment properly denied on defamation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (explains Indiana’s heightened caution in granting summary judgment)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (establishes actual malice standard for defamation involving public concern)
- Journal–Gazette Co. v. Bandido’s, Inc., 712 N.E.2d 446 (Ind. 1999) (applies actual malice standard under Indiana law)
- JKL Components Corp. v. Insul‑Reps, Inc., 596 N.E.2d 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (discusses implied contracts where parties continue performance after expiration)
- Vincennes Univ. v. Sparks, 988 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (reluctance to infer promise of continued employment absent express terms)
- Felsher v. Univ. of Evansville, 755 N.E.2d 589 (Ind. 2001) (elements of tortious interference with business relations)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (1991) (clarifies meaning of malice and falsity standards in defamation)