By: Patricia Hamill and Lorie Dakessian
After a male university student told his mother and girlfriend that a male coach was rumored to be having sex with one of his female players, the mother reported the rumor to the university. The university conducted a Title IX investigation and found no evidence to corroborate the rumor, but the coach nonetheless left the university. The student then sued the university and the coach, claiming the coach had retaliated against him after he served as a witness in the Title IX investigation. The coach counterclaimed against the student for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The student settled with the university and dismissed his claims, and the Court granted the coach summary judgment as to liability on his defamation counterclaim (Lozier v. Holzgrafe, No. 18-3077, 2023 WL 6545019 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2023)). After a four-day trial regarding the coach’s defamation claim, the jury found against the student and awarded the coach $2,000,000 in general damages, $40,000 in special damages, and $874,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $2,914,000. In a May 2, 2025, opinion, the Court denied the student’s motion for judgment as a matter of a law or a new trial and granted remittitur in part, reducing the general damage award to $1 million but refusing to reduce the punitive damage award. Holzgrafe v. Lozier, No. 18-CV-3077, 2025 WL 1276225 (C.D. Ill. May 2, 2025).
The Court ruled as follows:
- Legally sufficient evidence supported the verdict. The Court cited testimony by the coach and others as to the changes in him after the rumor was publicized and concluded that “a rational juror could find [the coach] has proven damages to his mental state, reputation, and financial resources. [The coach] clearly proved the damage that this rumor inflicted on his life and the toll it took on him. Given the evidence presented to support the jury’s finding of compensatory damages, this Court also declines to enter judgment on [the student’s] behalf as to punitive damages.”
- The verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and thus a new trial was not warranted. The Court held that there was no innocent construction of the student’s statements, whether he had actually started the rumor or simply repeated it; the coach was not a public figure and thus did not need to prove actual malice; the Court properly allowed testimony as to republications of the student’s statements, since the republications were reasonably foreseeable; the coach did not need to prove malice to recover punitive damages; even if republications by the student and his mother to university officials with respect to the Title IX investigation were protected by a qualified privilege, the privilege was defeated by evidence of malice or reckless disregard (including evidence that the mother wanted the coach out so her son could play more); the Court properly allowed the coach to discuss his experiences and the impact of the rumors on his life and livelihood; and the student did not establish juror misconduct or partiality.
- The general damage award was excessive, given that the coach suffered no physical damages or severe economic damages, and should be reduced to $1 million.
- The punitive damage award did not exceed acceptable limits and would not be reduced. The Court agreed with the coach that the student’s actions “were indeed reprehensible by the creation of a rumor of infidelity that [the student] knew was false and was spread.” “Although the spreading of a rumor is generally thought to be innocuous, this rumor was that [the student’s] tennis coach was having an affair with a student tennis player.” The court also noted that the student and his parents had a “strained” relationship with the coach, the mother had a history of complaining to the university, and the student’s lawsuit against the coach and the university caused further publicity and damage to the coach’s reputation. Though the coach did not suffer physical injury, his mental health was affected, and he suffered “humiliation and harm to his reputation in a very close-knit community.” The Court also concluded that the student’s financial status supported an award of punitive damages, noting that he had an undergraduate degree, a law school degree, and money left from the $400,000 settlement he received in his lawsuit against the university.
Although in this case the person spreading the rumors was not the alleged victim of misconduct, the case still provides support to those who are targeted by false rumors, and potential deterrence to those who spread the rumors.
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.