M. Plakorus v. University of Montana
477 P.3d 311
Mont.2020Background
- Mark Plakorus was head coach of UM women’s soccer (2011–2018). A 2017 player complaint prompted a Title IX climate survey and an audit of his University‑issued cell phone.
- The audit allegedly showed texts/calls to Las Vegas escort services; Plakorus disputes that finding. The University informed him on Jan 29, 2018 it would not renew his contract.
- On Feb 1, 2018 the Missoulian and other outlets published stories (some redacting phone records/personnel information) reporting the investigation and non‑renewal.
- Plakorus sued in April 2019 (amended Aug. 2019) asserting constitutional privacy violation, defamation, tortious interference, negligence, and invasion of privacy; he later dropped breach‑of‑contract.
- The District Court dismissed all tort claims under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), concluding their gravamen was contractual and barred by the one‑year statute for contract claims against the State (§ 18‑1‑402(2), MCA).
- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the privacy, invasion, and negligence claims but reversed as to defamation and tortious interference, remanding those tort claims for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims sound in contract or tort (governs statute of limitations) | Plakorus: duties (privacy, care, truthfulness) exist independent of employment contract; statutes and common law govern; longer tort SOLs apply | UM: duties to protect/manage personnel records arise solely from the employment contract and related policies; claims therefore sound in contract and are time‑barred | Mixed: court held privacy, invasion, and negligence claims arise from contract duties and are barred by the 1‑year contract SOL; defamation and tortious interference arise from independent legal duties and survive dismissal |
| Right of privacy / invasion / negligence: timeliness and source of duty | Plakorus: these are tort/dconstitutional duties independent of contract | UM: duty to maintain confidentiality exists only because of employment; investigation and recordkeeping flow from contract | Held: dismissed — duties arise from contract; one‑year contractual limitations applies |
| Defamation and tortious interference: whether barred as contract claims | Plakorus: alleged false public accusations and career harm are torts independent of any contractual promise; two‑year/three‑year tort SOLs apply | UM: publicity and allegations concern personnel information tied to employment and thus sound in contract | Held: the Court reversed dismissal — allegations of knowingly false or malicious statements and interference state tort claims independent of contract and were timely filed |
| Exhaustion/grievance procedure for tort claims against the State | Plakorus: proceeded to court; argues claims are timely and properly pleaded | UM / concurrence: tort claims against State must be presented to Department of Administration (and contract claims grieved); failure to exhaust bars suit | Held: Supreme Court did not decide exhaustion; noted record is unclear whether Plakorus exhausted administrative remedies and expressed no opinion; concurrence would have dismissed on exhaustion grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Dewey v. Stringer, 375 Mont. 176 (discusses when tort duties exist independent of contract)
- Tin Cup Cty. Water v. Garden City Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 347 Mont. 468 (gravamen of complaint governs whether contract or tort law applies)
- Weible v. Ronan State Bank, 238 Mont. 235 (tort claims may prevail even when injuries originate in contract)
- Billings Clinic v. Peat Marwick Main & Co., 244 Mont. 324 (duties arising from employment relationship may be contractual)
- Billings Gazette v. City of Billings, 362 Mont. 522 (public employee investigation into abuse of trust may negate reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Milky Whey, Inc. v. Dairy Partners, LLC, 378 Mont. 75 (breach of obligation arising from agreement does not give rise to tort)
- Town of Geraldine v. Mont. Mun. Ins. Auth., 347 Mont. 267 (distinguishes tort claims that are effectively contract modification allegations)
- Thiel v. Taurus Drilling Ltd., 218 Mont. 201 (plaintiff may pursue coexisting tort and contract theories)
- Board of Dentistry v. Kandarian, 268 Mont. 408 (common law duty not to publish false, highly offensive information)
- Quitmeyer v. Theroux, 144 Mont. 304 (negligence claim subjected to tort SOL where duty arose independently of contract)