Knelman v. Middlebury College
898 F. Supp. 2d 697
D. Vt.2012Background
- Knelman applied to Middlebury College, a Division III NCAA member, and joined the hockey program for the 2009–2010 season.
- He discussed position changes with Coach Beaney, indicating a desire to move from defense to forward, with various shifts over 2009–2011.
- In January 2011, Knelman left a hockey team banquet early; Beaney called the departure “selfish.”
- Following the Banquet, Knelman was suspended from practice and ultimately dismissed from the team on January 24, 2011, with potential for future tryouts in 2011–2012.
- Knelman pursued internal grievances through Middlebury’s athletics and faculty channels, seeking policy reforms and a letter for future employers; the athletics department had no formal grievance process in place at that time.
- Plaintiff’s breach-of-contract theory centers on the Handbook’s procedures; the NCAA manual is claimed to be incorporated or intended for third-party benefit, neither of which the court accepts as giving rise to enforceable contractual rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contractual breach via Handbook procedures | Knelman pled specific Handbook processes applying to nonacademic discipline. | Handbook procedures do not apply to athletics or to coach-led team actions; no charged offense occurred. | Summary judgment for Middlebury on Handbook-based contract claims. |
| Contractual obligations from NCAA Manual | Handbook-incorporated NCAA fairness provisions bind Middlebury; Knelman as intended third-party beneficiary. | NCAA manual not incorporated; no intended third-party beneficiary status. | Summary judgment for Defendants on NCAA manual contract claims. |
| Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Implied covenant requires fair treatment under contract. | No contractual rights implicated; cannot bootstrap duties through implied covenant. | GRANT for Defendants on implied covenant claim. |
| Defamation by Coach Beaney | Statements about Knelman’s past and Banquet conduct damaged his reputation. | Some statements are non-actionable opinion; others are protected; no actual malice. | Defendants prevail on most aspects; the “not an isolated incident” statement survives summary judgment as to defamation. |
| Negligent supervision | Employer owed duty to prevent tortious conduct by Coach Beaney; there was notice. | Little evidence of foreseeability or actual negligent supervision. | Dispute as to foreseeability/material facts; summary judgment denied on Count VI. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Sterling Coll., Inc., 750 A.2d 1020 (Vt. 2000) (contractual student-school relationship; enforceable terms must be specific and concrete)
- Fellheimer v. Middlebury Coll., 869 F. Supp. 238 (D. Vt. 1994) (academic context; caution in applying contract principles to disciplinary procedures)
- Gally v. Columbia Univ., 22 F. Supp. 2d 199 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (general promises about ethical standards are not enforceable contract terms)
- Ullmo ex rel. Ullmo v. Gilmour Acad., 273 F.3d 671 (6th Cir. 2001) (aspirational promises not enforceable as contract terms)
- Merrow v. Goldberg, 672 F. Supp. 766 (D. Vt. 1987) (teacher-student contract concepts; specific promises required)