Polo association defeats claims by player accused of bullying

Where a polo player was investigated for allegedly directing a racial slur toward a minor and then bullying him, but was cleared of the charges, his subsequent defamation, breach of contract and emotional distress claims against the investigating organization were dismissed.

Background

The amended complaint alleges that the United States Polo Association or USPA, defamed Darrell Gaebel, breached its contract with him by not following its bylaws and intentionally caused him emotional distress when it (1) brought disciplinary charges against him based on a complaint that he had called 14-year-old Aleem Siddiqui a racial slur during a polo match and bullied Siddiqui afterward; (2) held an eight-hour hearing to determine whether there was a reasonable basis to believe the allegations and (3) issued a final order stating that there was no reasonable basis to find that Gaebel used a racial slur. For the reasons stated in open court and more fully elaborated in this opinion, defendant’s motion to dismiss has been granted.

Defamation

Count One alleges that defendant defamed plaintiff: (1) by republishing the allegation that plaintiff used a racial slur in the notice; (2) by conducting a public disciplinary hearing without jurisdiction and with “reckless disregard” for the veracity of the charges and (3) by issuing a public final order implying that, based on the evidence presented during the hearing, defendant considered the allegation of plaintiff’s use of a racial slur to be true.

First, the notice neither stated nor implied that Gaebel actually used a racial epithet or actually bullied Sidiqqui; it only stated that it was alleged that he had done so. All the notice does is give the plaintiff very clear notice of the charges he faced, the names of witnesses who might testify and copies of complaints. Although plaintiff argues that the notice adopted allegations as true, no plausible reading of the notice supports that conclusion.

Second, regarding the hearing, none of defendant’s officials ever said or implied that the allegations were true, and the hearing actually gave defendant the opportunity to show that they were false. Moreover, plaintiff has not cited any caselaw supporting his claim that holding a hearing to determine whether allegations are true is tantamount to stating that those allegations are, in fact, true.

Third, a reasonable person could not interpret the final order as implying that Gaebel actually directed a racial slur at Siddiqui. A far more likely interpretation was reluctance by the hearing officers to label a 14-year-old as a liar. This common-sense reading is reinforced by a summary that was published and made publicly available after the hearing.

Breach of contract

Count Two alleges that defendant breached its disciplinary procedures policy or DPP, by (1) charging plaintiff with conduct violations based on an improper conduct violation complaint and (2) holding a hearing without jurisdiction. The court rejects both arguments and finds that Count Two fails to allege a plausible cause of action.

Count Three alleges that defendant breached the DPP and violated “common law due process” during the hearing by applying the DPP in an arbitrary manner. Plaintiff cannot show any prejudice caused by the USPA’s allegedly arbitrary application of the DPP during the hearing. After all, plaintiff received a favorable decision with all charges being dismissed. Even if plaintiff had somehow been prejudiced by the proceeding, he cannot recover emotional damages or attorney’s fees under Virginia law.

As for plaintiff’s “common law due process” claim, it does not appear that any Virginia case has formally recognized such a claim. And to the extent the Fourth Circuit discussed a “common law duty,” it does not appear such a duty would extend to the USPA. Even if the USPA had a common law duty to provide fair procedures, the complaint does not allege facts supporting a claim of due process violation.

Duty of fair dealing

Count Four alleges that defendant violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by interpreting the DPP to intentionally benefit Siddiqui and hamstring plaintiff’s defense. This claim repackages the breach of contract claims. And, again, because the proceeding ended in plaintiff’s favor, Count Four fails for the same reasons as the prior counts.

IIED

Although Count Five fails to allege sufficient facts to support any element of an intentional infliction of emotional distress or IIED, claim, the simplest element to focus on is the element of outrageousness. The behavior plaintiff claims was outrageous was (1) holding a hearing without jurisdiction and (2) holding a hearing based on false allegations. Plaintiff offers no caselaw to suggest that such conduct exceeds “all possible bounds of decency.” Moreover, the USPA had jurisdiction to charge plaintiff and conduct the hearing, and the hearing afforded plaintiff full fair process, resulting in his favor.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted.

Gaebel v. United States Polo Association, Case No. 1:22-cv-141, May 12, 2022. EDVA at Alexandria (Brinkema). VLW 022-3-203. 17 pp.