458 F.Supp.3d 1020
N.D. Ind.2020Background
- Kevin Pack was terminated from Northridge High School in April 2014; MCS posted a press release stating his performance was poor.
- Pack sued MCS in January 2015 alleging religious discrimination; the parties settled in November 2016.
- The settlement contained confidentiality and non‑disparagement terms limiting public statements and requiring MCS to provide only positions and dates if asked by prospective employers.
- Pack later sued the owner of The Elkhart Truth for defamation; Superintendent Jane Allen submitted an affidavit in that case.
- In mid‑2018 Pack had acquaintances impersonate prospective employers to call MCS; callers were told Pack had been terminated and, in one instance, that he was terminated for cause.
- Pack filed this breach‑of‑contract suit in November 2018 alleging three breaches (responses to the hoax calls, failure to remove the 2014 press release from the website, and Allen’s affidavit); the court granted summary judgment for MCS and dismissed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pack) | Defendant's Argument (MCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether MCS breached the settlement by disclosing adverse info during phone calls | Allen told callers Pack was terminated; Pack says this violated paragraph 6(B) limiting responses to prospective employers | The calls were from impersonators, not actual "prospective employers," and MCS received no genuine employer inquiries | No breach — paragraph 6(B) applies only to inquiries from actual prospective employers; no triable fact that MCS violated it |
| 2. Whether leaving the April 2014 press release online violated non‑disparagement | Keeping the press release that disparaged Pack amounts to ongoing disparagement and breached the agreement | The release predated the settlement; Pack waived accrued claims and the non‑disparagement clause is prospective and does not require retraction of prior public records | No breach — settlement did not require MCS to remove or retract pre‑existing public records and Pack could have bargained for removal but did not |
| 3. Whether Allen’s affidavit in Pack’s defamation suit breached non‑disparagement | Submitting affidavit repeated adverse statements and thus violated the non‑disparagement clause | Affidavit is protected by Indiana’s absolute litigation privilege for statements relevant to judicial proceedings | No breach — absolute litigation privilege bars contract claim based on relevant judicial statements |
| 4. Motions to strike, supplement, and request for hearing | Pack sought to supplement; both parties moved to strike various filings; MCS sought a hearing about alleged harassing calls | MCS argued many submissions noncompliant; sought hearing on alleged intimidation | Court granted Pack’s supplementation, denied/denied‑as‑moot most motions, struck only an unaffiliated affidavit; denied hearing as moot given dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville, 977 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. 2012) (plain meaning of unambiguous contract controls)
- Haub v. Eldridge, 981 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (release clauses are contracts to be interpreted)
- Payday Today, Inc. v. Defreeuw, 903 N.E.2d 1057 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (contract must be read as whole and harmonized)
- Hartman v. Keri, 883 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. 2008) (absolute privilege for statements made in judicial proceedings)
- Van Eaton v. Fink, 697 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (public interest in uninhibited judicial participation supports absolute privilege)
- Rain v. Rolls‑Royce Corp., 626 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2010) (applying Indiana absolute privilege to voluntary statements in litigation)
- Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 1994) (summary judgment standard: court decides only whether triable factual disputes exist)