114 A.3d 99
Vt.2014Background
- Marilyn Davis (Auxiliary Unit member, not a Post member) and her four-year-old granddaughter attended a public karaoke night at American Legion Barre Post No. 10; club policy barred minors after 7:00 p.m. without special permission.
- Staff asked them to leave at 7:00 p.m.; a dispute occurred, they left without refund, and Davis later posted critical comments on the Post's Facebook page.
- The Post 10 House Committee met and issued a four-month restriction on Davis’s privileges at the Post club (she could still attend Auxiliary meetings) and sent a letter of reprimand describing her conduct.
- Davis appealed to The American Legion Department of Vermont and The American Legion Auxiliary Department of Vermont; both declined to intervene, and Davis sued for damages and a preliminary injunction asserting five claims (public accommodations/sex discrimination, breach of implied contract, violation of public policy/free speech, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and libel).
- Defendants (Post 10, House Committee members, and Legion Department) moved to dismiss under V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6); the trial court granted dismissal of all monetary-damage claims; Davis appealed only the dismissal of damages claims (not the denied injunction).
- Governing charters and bylaws (incorporated into the complaint) show separate organizations: American Legion (Posts), Sons (Squadrons), and Auxiliary (Units); Posts and Auxiliary Units are affiliated but cannot discipline each other or their members interchangeably.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Post 10 violated the Public Accommodations Act by denying Davis procedures available to male Sons members | Davis: House Committee denied due process protections that would be afforded to a male Sons member under Post bylaws/Officer’s Guide | Defendants: Officer’s Guide applies only to Post membership suspensions/expulsions; Davis is not a Post member and the Committee only restricted guest privileges | Dismissed — documents show Officer’s Guide governs membership discipline only; no sex-based discrimination claim established |
| Whether Post 10’s rules/Officer’s Guide created an implied contract binding Post to provide procedural protections to Davis | Davis: Bylaws/Officer’s Guide and Post practice created an implied contract | Defendants: Implied contracts presume a mutual relationship (membership); nonmembers are not bound by or entitled to enforcement of internal bylaws | Dismissed — no membership relationship; no mutual obligations; Officer’s Guide does not bind nonmembers |
| Whether Committee retaliation violated public policy/free speech | Davis: Committee retaliated for her Facebook posts about the incident | Defendants: Davis was a guest whose privileges were restricted; the actions do not implicate public policy or membership discipline rules | Dismissed — private club guest restriction not subject to public-policy intervention; speech-related claim insufficient |
| Whether Committee’s conduct supports IIED or libel claims | Davis: Restriction, reprimand, and statements caused severe emotional distress and were defamatory | Defendants: Conduct not outrageous; reprimand statements not sufficiently defamatory and no damages alleged; factual record (exhibits) undermines falsity | Dismissed — IIED lacks outrageousness/severe distress; libel fails because statements aren’t sufficiently defamatory and no actual harm alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Dernier v. Mortg. Network, Inc., 195 Vt. 113 (2013 VT 96) (standard of review on Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Havill v. Woodstock Soapstone Co., 177 Vt. 297 (2004 VT 73) (implied contract analysis in employment/manual context)
- Fromson v. State, 176 Vt. 395 (2004 VT 29) (elements and burden for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Lent v. Huntoon, 143 Vt. 539 (1983) (prima facie elements of libel and requirement of actual harm)
- Kinsley v. Herald & Globe Ass’n, 113 Vt. 272 (1943) (definition of defamatory statement)
- Cate v. City of Burlington, 194 Vt. 265 (2013 VT 64) (IIED outrageousness standard)
- King v. Grand Chapter of R.I. Order of the E. Star, 919 A.2d 991 (R.I. 2007) (perspectives on bylaws creating enforceable obligations in a membership context)