Paterno v. Pennsylvania State University
688 F. App'x 128
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellants Jay Paterno and William Kenney were assistant coaches at Penn State and were fired in January 2012 after Joe Paterno was relieved amid the Sandusky sexual‑abuse scandal.
- Penn State engaged the Freeh Firm; the Freeh Report was incorporated into an NCAA Consent Decree issued July 2012, and Penn State accepted NCAA sanctions and waived certain NCAA procedural rights.
- Appellants sued in July 2014 alleging § 1983 deprivation of liberty (reputation) and property interests (NCAA and Penn State procedural rights and employment), plus state‑law claims including civil conspiracy and breach of contract.
- The district court granted Penn State’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing the § 1983 claims (liberty and property), and consequently dismissed the conspiracy claim; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit reviewed whether the complaints plausibly alleged (1) stigma plus an additional deprivation (the “stigma‑plus” test) tying defamatory statements to the plaintiffs’ terminations and (2) a conspiracy predicated on a constitutional deprivation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs alleged a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest in reputation (stigma‑plus) | Statements in the Freeh/NCAA Consent Decree and Penn State/NCAA press materials stigmatized plaintiffs and were connected to their firings | Statements did not identify plaintiffs or reasonably refer to them; no close temporal or causal connection to terminations | Dismissed: plaintiffs failed the stigma prong and thus the stigma‑plus test |
| Whether the Freeh/NCAA statements created a reasonable nexus to plaintiffs (group defamation) | “Some coaches” and related press items reasonably would be read to include plaintiffs given small, identifiable group | Group reference applied to coaches named in the Freeh Report (Paterno, McQueary); no reasonable link to these plaintiffs | Dismissed: no reasonable connection between statements and these plaintiffs |
| Whether the challenged statements were made "in connection with" terminations (temporal/causal nexus) | Media and sanctions kept reputational harm tied to their dismissals; termination was stigmatizing given timing and context | Consent Decree and many statements occurred months after terminations; firings were routine staff changes under a new coach | Dismissed: temporal/causal nexus lacking; statements not incident to discharge |
| Whether the conspiracy claim survives absent a valid § 1983 deprivation | Conspiracy alleged to deprive plaintiffs of federal due‑process rights | A § 1983 conspiracy requires an underlying constitutional deprivation; if deprivation fails, conspiracy fails | Dismissed: conspiracy claim fails because § 1983 claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (stigma‑plus test for reputation‑based due process claims)
- Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225 (application of stigma‑plus in public‑employment context)
- Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (statement must be made in connection with termination to satisfy stigma‑plus)
- Alvord‑Polk, Inc. v. F. Schumacher & Co., 37 F.3d 996 (group defamation: individual claim requires reasonable connection to group statement)
- Ulrich v. City & County of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968 (temporal proximity and nexus for statements "in connection with" termination)
- Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (timing of allegedly defamatory statements relevant to stigma‑plus)
- Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666 (§ 1983 requires deprivation of federal right under color of state law)