Villarini v. Iowa City Cmty. Sch. Dist.

1

AMIE VILLARINI, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 23-1220

Court of Appeals of Iowa

October 30, 2024

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Andrew Chappell, Judge.

A former high school tennis coach appeals a summary judgment ruling dismissing her defamation and wrongful-discharge claims against a school district and the school district cross-appeals the denial of its motion to amend its answer. AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL.

James K. Weston II of Tom Riley Law Firm, Iowa City, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Erek P. Sittig, Crystal K. Raiber, and Hayley Masching of Phelan Tucker Law LLP, Iowa City, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Heard by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J. ^[*]

LANGHOLZ, Judge

The Iowa City Community School District has chosen to expand public access to its school board meetings by posting complete video recordings of the meetings online. That decision led to this defamation suit by its former girls tennis coach, Amie Villarini. She claims that the school district defamed her by posting the video of a meeting during which two student tennis players made purportedly defamatory statements about her. And she alleges that placing her on administrative leave and not renewing her contract violates public policy.

The district court granted summary judgment for the school district, dismissing Villarini's defamation claim because the school district's republication of any defamatory statements made during the board meeting fell within the fairreport privilege. It also dismissed the coach's "breach of contract/violation of public policy" claim, holding the coach failed to identify a clearly defined public policy. Villarini appeals both rulings. And the school district cross-appeals the court's denial of leave to amend its answer to assert a qualified-immunity defense.

We agree that the fair-report privilege shields the school district from liability. The privilege covers those who fairly and accurately relay statements made during open official proceedings. The video did just that. And Villarini's arguments-that the privilege has not been recognized in Iowa or only applies to the news media-lack merit. So the defamation claim was properly dismissed and the school district's request to add another affirmative defense was correctly denied as moot. As for the other claim Villarini indeed offers no concrete public policy. Nor did she preserve error on a separate breach-of-contract claim. And so, the court did not error in granting judgment on this claim too.

I. Factual Background and Proceedings

Villarini was the longtime coach of the West High School girls' varsity tennis team. She did not teach at the school, instead coaching the team under a series of one-year contracts with the school district. See Iowa Code § 279.19A(1) (2022) (requiring certain extracurricular coaching contracts be limited to one school year).

After the 2021 season, four players complained that Villarini inappropriately touched them and raised other grievances about her coaching. The school district investigated and later issued a report concluding that while Villarini indeed made physical contact with students-touching one student under her bra straps, another on her bare back, and rubbing sunscreen onto other players' legs and thighs-the conduct did not amount to "indecent contact" under the school district's policy. The report advised Villarini "[t]o protect herself from future allegations" by "refrain[ing] from touching players as much as reasonably possible." And the report further found that the students' other grievances did not rise to the level of bullying or harassment under the policy. Frustrated by the investigation's outcome, two students escalated their complaints to the school board.

The school district is run by a board of directors-the school board-that holds regular meetings that are open to the public. See generally Iowa Code ch. 279. The school district's policies require the board to allocate time during each regular meeting to receive comments from the public. During a publiccomment period, a speaker may address the board for up to four minutes, with up to sixty minutes of public comments per meeting. This segment is solely a way for members of the public to be heard-the board will not act on or discuss any issue raised by the public during that same meeting.

On April 12, 2022, the two students attended a public school board meeting and addressed the board during the designated public-comment period.^[1] The first student recounted being "touched inappropriately" by her tennis coach^[2]-detailing instances of being touched on her bare back, leg, and upper thigh without consent-and her dismay at the investigation's findings. Indeed, the first student believed the school district's investigation was geared toward protecting the coach from complaints, rather than protecting students from unwanted touching. The first student also asserted her coach lied to, retaliated against, and belittled students.

The second student echoed her anger that her teammates' complaints were not taken more seriously and asked the board to revise the school district's investigative procedures to better protect students. The second student also highlighted the coach's social media posts, which appeared to target former players, and believed the coach created a hostile environment.

When the two students concluded their compelling remarks, the board moved on to other speakers and did not respond to or otherwise comment on their allegations. But the next speaker-a college student raising a different concern- referred to the students comments again, noting that he had "just sat here and listened to these young women stand up here and talk about how the Iowa City School District has not done its due diligence in rooting out predators in their school system."

The next day, the school district placed Villarini on administrative leave. The parties dispute why she was put on leave-Villarini believes it was a knee-jerk reaction to the board meeting, while the school district maintains it learned of a social media post that appeared to target the students who spoke at the meeting. Still, Villarini remained on leave through the end of the school year, receiving full compensation under her contract. And the school district declined to offer her another coaching contract for the next school year.

Two days after the meeting, the school board posted a video recording of the entire meeting on its YouTube channel, as it does for every public meeting. Villarini later asked the school district to take down the video, or at least edit the video to remove the student's comments or add a disclaimer. The school district refused, reasoning that Iowa law "favor[s] public availability to public organizations and meetings." So Villarini sued the school district.

Villarini brought two claims: defamation and "breach of contract/violation of public policy." Villarini alleged the students slandered her during the meeting and the school district republished that slander when it posted the meeting video online. She also argued that removing her as the varsity tennis coach undermined public policy.

The school district moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that posting school board meeting videos online "increase[es] access to its public meetings" and so it should not be vicariously liable for any statements made during those meetings. It also argued that Villarini never identified any contract term that was violated, nor could declining to renew her contract violate any public policy. Villarini, opposing the motion, asserted that the students per-se defamed her, the school district knew the statements were false and defamatory, and it kept the video posted publicly anyway. As for her other claim, Villarini urged that placing her on leave and not renewing her contract breached a public policy "against school employees being forced out of their jobs by angry parents and students making wild, unfounded allegations for the purpose of ousting that employee."

The district court granted summary judgment for the school district. The court held that Villarini's defamation claim failed on several grounds. As relevant here, the court reasoned the fair-report privilege shielded the school district. Following the Second Restatement of Torts, the court applied the qualified privilege afforded to those who fairly and accurately report on public proceedings. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611 (Am. L. Inst. 1977) (hereinafter "Restatement"). The court analyzed her second claim as a common-law wrongful-discharge-in-violation-of-public-policy tort and held that Villarini did not articulate any "well-established public policy" grounded in our state's constitution, statutes, or regulations. And so, the district court dismissed both claims. Villarini did not move to reconsider or enlarge this ruling under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2).

While the summary-judgment motion was pending, the school district moved to amend its answer to raise a new affirmative defense under the municipal qualified-immunity statute. See Iowa Code § 670.4A. After granting summary judgment for the school district, the court denied this motion as moot. Villarini now appeals the summary judgment ruling and the school district cross-appeals the denial of its motion to amend.

II. Defamation and Fair-Report Privilege

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment "for correction of errors at law." Bandstra v Covenant Reformed Church, 913 N.W.2d 19, 36 (Iowa 2018) (cleaned up). The district court must grant summary judgment when the evidence in the...