McElhaney v. Williams
| Decision Date | 08 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:21-cv-00019 |
| Parties | RANDALL MCELHANEY, Plaintiff, v. DUSTIN WILLIAMS; WILLIAM STEPP; NATHAN BROWN; TIMOTHY MARTIN; JOHN PETTIT; and PUTNAM COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 39) on Plaintiff's allegation of alleging violation of his constitutional rights and breach of contract. Because the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's First Amendment claim, and summary judgment is appropriate on his Fourteenth Amendment claim, those claims will be dismissed. Additionally, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law contract claim.
Plaintiff Randall McElhaney is the father of L.M., a student at Upperman High School and member of the girls' varsity softball team. The school is located in Baxter, Tennessee and competes with other schools in the area in accordance with Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association Rules. (Doc. No. 47, SUMF ¶¶ 1-3).
Dustin Williams, the Head Coach of the girls' team, drafted a “Parent-player Information” sheet that was provided to all parents and students. Among other things, that sheet instructed that “playing time is a non negotiable for coaches to talk directly with parents about.” (Doc. No. 39-1 at 1). The sheet also contained a paragraph for “Parents” that reads:
“Parents need to be supportive of the program on the field and off the field. In the stands and at home. We understand every parent wants what is best for their child. Please remember this program wants what is best for this team and we have to strive for that. We need parents to be supportive of other players, other players on the team, and the program. By doing this the season will be a much more pleasant and enjoyable, result being the kids will gel more like a team instead of individuals, and parents will gel as well. Guarantee your child sees and feels negativity and it will affect how they perform on and off the field. Practices are closed on the field or in the gym. No Parents or legal guardians are allowed to attend practice. No parents are to interact with their child during the games . . . this means no parents in the dugout during the games and no parent coming to the dugout coaching or giving instructions. Again let's be positive and cheer the girls on the field.
(Id. at 3) (syntax and grammar in original) (emphasis added). The policies were in effect during all times relevant to this litigation, and Plaintiff understood those policies. (Doc. No. 39-3, McElhaney Depo. at 74-76).
On April 15, 2021, Plaintiff sent text messages to Coach Williams that Defendants characterize as being critical of L.M.'s playing time, her teamates, and coaching decisions. Plaintiff contends the messages were not meant to be criticism, but instead were simply his efforts to receive “an explanation of [Coach] Williams' decision in light of the data (player statistics),” and an attempt to “advocat[e] for his daughter.” (Doc. No. 47, SUMF ¶ 5). Whatever characterization is proper, the following excerpts suggest the tenor of the text messages:
“L”[2] came home and said she talked to you. You need to look at the books and find out which kid has made the least amount of errors on the team. I can tell you “L” is with 0. You benched “L” out of 2nd base after I rebutted what Mike told you that “L” needed to under hand that ball to “A” at 1st in the Soddy Daisy Tournament and I said “L” had to throw it fast like that to get the girl out because if she wouldn't have the girl would have been safe. “C” has made two errors already at 2nd base and you had to get onto her during the Dekalb County game and she does not cover bases at all. She has no idea what she is doing. She got played over every one of her middle school years at 2nd. So you are benching an upper classman to put her there. That is not understandable at all. Your other 2 pitchers don't leave the field at all. I didn't understand when you took “L” out of the pitching circle why she didn't just trade places with “A” at 2nd the other night in Livingston. No matter who makes errors in the outfield you just leave them in there. They take bad angles and they don't catch the ball or they just run up and let it fall in front of them when they can make a play. . . . “L” is right here and said she doesn't disagree with any of what was just said. I told her this is what she should have said to you in the teachers lounge when she talked to you today.”
Coach Williams responded:
“I am sorry you feel this way, and sorry that you don't understand that we are only trying to do what we feel like is best for our team currently. I don't feel like running down other players is the best way to approach the situation nor do I feel like questioning our programs structural integrity is beneficial for anyone involved. We enjoy having “L” on our team and appreciate her heart . . . she is a great kid and a joy to be around, but I am under no circumstances going to continue to justify our reasons for what we do inside of our program or what we feel like is best for us. It seems from the comments I have heard that have came from you outside the park that you are extremely displeased with how we are running the program and have an exponential amount of opinions on how we should be running it . . crazy we have to have that conversation at 6-0 in the district but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It seems we have reached the boiling point and you have a couple of options . . . 1.) go talk to my administration about how you feel 2.) walk away from the program or 3.) allow us to continue working daily to do what we feel like is best for our program and support us instead of running us down. I will not have this conversation again and feel completely disrespected in how this is being handled.”
Plaintiff replied:
doesn't mean that ‘L' shouldn't be on the field..I have coached several teams in my past so its not like I don't' know what I'm talking about..I will never go to administration over a coach unless they physically harm my kid. I don't believe in that. If I ever feel I need for my kid or kids to step away from a team I will pull them. Then we will have a decision to either not and play at all or have them transfer and play for someone else. My kids are no where near all stars and I don't treat them that way at all. I would like her [sic] for her to remain with the team but would also like to see her be able to contribute as well.. ..In a nutshell maybe I shouldn't have said anything to you and maybe just let my kid to learn to talk with you and address all of her concerns.”
(Doc. No. 39-2 at 2-13) (syntax and grammar in original). The exchanges were solely between plaintiff and Coach Williams, but were shared by Plaintiff with L.M. Coach Williams also forwarded the exchanges to Williams Stepp, the Principal of Upperman High School.
After conferring with Plaintiff (in a meeting also attended by Athletic Director Nathan Brown), Principal Stepp decided that a one-week suspension from Plaintiff attending games would put some time and space between him and Coach Williams. Later, after speaking with Plaintiff briefly and telling him he would not intervene, Timothy Martin, the Deputy Director of Schools upheld the suspension decision. (Doc. No. 43, SUMF ¶¶ 6-8). Plaintiff then met with Corby King, the Director of Schools for Putnam County, but King, too, concluded that the suspension was appropriate. (Id. ¶ 9).
Notwithstanding the suspension, Plaintiff attended his daughter's softball game on April 20, 2021 and sat in the stands. (Doc. No. 46 as 3).[3] During the third inning, Principal Stepp approached Plaintiff and asked him to leave. As the two walked towards the gate, they were joined by School Resource Officer John Pettit. Frustrated that he was not allowed to watch his daughter play, Plaintiff said, “this is bullsh**.” Officer Pettit reiterated that Plaintiff needed to leave the game, stating that Principal Stepp was in charge of the school, and if he wanted Plaintiff to leave he would have to leave or be considered trespassing. Plaintiff's entreaty that he be allowed to watch the game from outside the gate was rebuffed and he left the ballpark to avoid risking arrest. (Id.). At no point did Officer Pettit touch or arrest plaintiff. (Doc. No. 43, SUMF ¶ 13).
Based upon the above facts, Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against for exercising his free speech rights in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I § 19 of the Tennessee Constitution, and denied due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, ¶ 8 of the Tennessee Constitution. He also claims breach of contract based upon his paying $375 for a season ticket and his inability to attend games for a week.[4]
“A First Amendment retaliation claim has three elements ‘(1) the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct [i.e., constitutionally protected speech]; (2) an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct; and (3) . . . the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial