Opinion
1460 MDA 2022 J-A16017-23
11-28-2023
JEFFREY THOMPSON Appellant v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered September 21, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Civil Division at No(s): 2017-1270
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM
BENDER, P.J.E.
Appellant, Jeffrey Thompson, appeals from the order entered on September 21, 2022, in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, granting summary judgment in favor of The Pennsylvania State University ("PSU"). After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court provided a detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history of this matter, which we need not reproduce herein. See Trial Court Opinion and Order ("TCOO"), 9/21/22, at 1-6. Briefly, Mr. Thompson was hired as the head coach of PSU's women's gymnastics program ("WGP") in 2010, pursuant to a written employment agreement. Id. at 2-3. In 2011, PSU reprimanded Mr. Thompson for his violations of the PSU Policy, which protected students' right to privacy, and warned him that "further misconduct could lead to additional discipline or even termination." Id. at 2. After several anonymous letters criticizing Mr. Thompson's performance with respect to the WGP and his treatment of the gymnasts, an investigation was conducted by the Deputy Director of Athletics. Id. at 3. The Academic Advisor and two senior members of the women's gymnastics team denied the validity of the allegations against Mr. Thompson. Id.
In May of 2015, Mr. Thompson entered into a second written employment agreement with PSU, which went into effect immediately upon the expiration of the first employment contract. Id. This contract defined "for cause" termination as including, but not limited to, violations of the National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA"), Big Ten, and PSU policies; failure to cooperate with supervisory authorities; and other misconduct. Id. In
December of 2015, after PSU's investigation of multiple anonymous complaints concerning the WGP, disciplinary letters were placed in Mr. Thompson's personnel file, and he was warned that "future misconduct could result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination." Id. at 4. In February of 2017, the assistant coaches of the WGP expressed concerns regarding Mr. Thompson's conduct. Id. at 5. Subsequently, the Title IX Coordinator met with PSU's Athletic Director to discuss Title IX violations and prior misconduct by Mr. Thompson. Id. at 5-6. Mr. Thompson was terminated on February 23, 2017, "for cause." Id. at 6.
On July 27, 2017, Mr. Thompson filed a complaint against PSU, alleging defamation, false light, and breach of contract. See generally Complaint, 7/27/17. After the denial of its preliminary objections, PSU filed an answer with new matter on December 17, 2018. Mr. Thompson filed a reply to PSU's new matter on January 29, 2019. TCOO at 1; PSU's Brief at 3. On July 11, 2022, PSU filed a motion for summary judgment. TCOO at 1. Following the submission of briefs and oral argument, the trial court entered an order on September 21, 2022, granting summary judgment in favor of PSU and dismissing all claims brought by Mr. Thompson against PSU. Id. at 14.
Mr. Thompson filed a timely appeal, followed by a timely, court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On November 2, 2022, the trial court issued an opinion in compliance with Rule 1925(a), indicating that the issues raised by Mr. Thompson were addressed in its September 21, 2022 opinion. On appeal, Mr. Thompson presents the following sole issue for our review: "Whether the trial court committed an error of law when it granted [PSU's] motion for summary judgment when [Mr. Thompson] adduced evidence of actual malice in support of his defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims." Mr. Thompson's Brief at 4 (cleaned up). Our standard of review of an order granting or denying summary judgment is well-settled:
Mr. Thompson does not challenge the trial court's granting of summary judgment regarding his breach of contract claim against PSU.
We view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law will summary judgment be entered. Our scope of review of a trial court's order granting or denying summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of review is clear: the trial court's order will be reversed only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion.Siciliano v. Mueller, 149 A.3d 863, 864 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).
Mr. Thompson essentially argues:
Had the trial court reviewed the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to [him] and resolved all doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against [PSU], [PSU's] motion for summary judgment on [Mr. Thompson's] defamation and false light claims should have been denied. The trial court's reason for granting summary judgment, i.e., that [Mr. Thompson] adduced no evidence of actual malice was a clear error and misapplication of the law.Mr. Thompson's Brief at 19.
In reviewing Mr. Thompson's arguments, we have considered the briefs of the parties, the certified record, and the applicable law. We have also assessed the detailed and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Jonathan D. Grine of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County. Judge Grine's opinion thoroughly explains his basis for granting PSU's motion for summary judgment. See TCOO at 7-14. Specifically, Judge Grine addresses Mr.
Thompson's assertion that the court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to the defamation and false light claims; he concludes that Mr. Thompson failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding these two claims. See id. at 7-10. Judge Grine's decision is supported by ample, competent evidence in the record, and we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we adopt his opinion as our own, and we affirm the order granting summary judgment in favor of PSU. Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.