Complaint (VT fed dist): Knelman v Middlebury College and Bill Beaney (May 5, 2011)

7/26/2019 Complaint (VT fed dist): Knelman v Middlebury College and Bill Beaney (May 5, 2011)

1/33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT

ZOIl M Y I I t 2

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

JAMES

JAK KNELMAN

Plaintiff

v.

MIDDLEBURY

COLLEGE

and

BILL BEANEY,

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. :\

l C /-- \ ; l

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff James Jak Knelman, by and through his undersigned counsel, herein states his

causes of action and claims for relief as follows:

Nature ofAction

1. Plaintiff James Jak Knelman ( Knelman ) is a student-athlete at Middlebury

College who played on the hockey team until he was wrongly dismissed on January

24 2011.

On January 15 2011 Knelman left an alumni hockey banquet shortly before it ended to spend

time with his father who was visiting that weekend. Head coach defendant Bill Beaney ( Coach

Beaney ) subsequently berated Knelman for this in front

of

the entire hockey team, and then

suspended and dismissed Knelman from the team.

2. Knelman brings this action to obtain damages and equitable rel ief to remedy,

among other things, the breach

of

contract, breach

of

covenant

of

good faith and fair dealing,

breach

of

fiduciary duties and defamation by defendants in connection with the arbitrary and

AND SHEA

PROFEsSIONAL CORPORATION

. O. Box 369

VERMONT

Case 5:11-cv-00123-cr Document 1 Filed 05/11/11 Page 1 of 33


2/33

capricious dismissal

of

Knelman by Coach Beaney from the hockey team. As more fully set

forth below, defendant Middlebury College ( Middlebury ) breached its contract with Knelman

by, among other things, (a) failing to ensure that Coach Beaney treated Knelman fairly, ethically,

with integrity and in good faith; (b) permitting Coach Beaney to arbitrarily and capriciously

dismiss him from the Middlebury hockey team; and (c) failing to adhere to the NCAA Division

Ill s requirement that Middlebury assure that the actions of its coaches and administrators exhibit

fairness and honesty in their relationships with student-athletes. In their positions

of

trust and

power over student-athletes such as Knelman, Middlebury and Coach Beaney also breached their

fiduciary duties owing to Knelman.

3. As a result

of

Defendants wrongful acts, Defendants are liable to Knelman for all

resulting losses, including reimbursement

of

tuition paid to Middlebury and the economic loss

of

his professional hockey career. In addition, Knelman seeks specific performance of his contract

with Middlebury as well as equitable relief in the form of an injunction requiring Middlebury to

reinstate Knelman as a player in good standing on the hockey team, to enjoin Defendants from

stating that Knelman did anything wrong that led to his dismissal from the team, and to hold a

public hearing on Knelman s complaint that Coach Beaney violated Middlebury s Code of

Conduct when he arbitrarily and unfairly dismissed Knelman from the Middlebury hockey team.

Parties

4. Plaintiff Knelman, a Minnesota resident, is a student-athlete at Middlebury

College.

5. Defendant Middlebury is a liberal arts college located in Middlebury, Vermont.

Middlebury is a Division III member ofthe National Collegiate Athletic Association ( NCAA ).

AND

SHEA

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

. O. Box 369

VERMONT

- 2 -



3/33

6. Defendant Coach Beaney is a member of the coaching faculty at Middlebury and

has been the head coach of Middlebury s men s hockey team for several years.

Jurisdiction and Venue

7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of

this action and the parties

hereto pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), as complete diversity exists between Plaintiffand

Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds 75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a). Middlebury

College is located in Vermont and Beaney resides in Vermont and both are subject to the

personal jurisdiction

of

this Court. addition, a substantial part of the events and omissions

giving rise to the claims in this action occurred in this district.

A. Knelman Is A High Achiever Academically And A Talented Hockey Player.

9. From the time he was a young boy, Knelman loved playing hockey and aspired to

be a professional hockey player. At the same time, he understood early on the importance

of

obtaining a high-quality education.

10. Knelman graduated from the Academy of Holy Angels, a Catholic high school

located in Richfield, Minnesota, in 2007 with aspirations

of

becoming a professional hockey

player. addition to excelling academically in high school, Knelman was a lead player on his

high school hockey team, and was recognized as a promising young hockey player. Among

other achievements in hockey, he was a leading scorer in Minnesota, named to the All-

Conference Team of the Missota Boys Hockey League, and he was awarded the Hobey Baker

High School Character Award in 2007, an award presented to the player on the team who most

AN D SHEA


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

- 3 -



4/33

exemplifies the values and traits

of

character, commitment, teamwork, persistence, selflessness,

academic excellence and sportsmanship.

11. Following high school, to pursue his aspiration to be a professional hockey player,

Knelman briefly attended Colgate College and then joined the United States Hockey League

( USHL ), a top prepatory hockey league that is one of the nation s top producers for junior

hockey talent for colleges and the NHL (approximately 158 former players have active NHL

contracts).

12. Knelman was with the USHL Chicago Steel team for about two years, where he

was an assistant captain and a valued player.

13. Knelman began the process of returning to college during 2009. Knelman had

hopes and expectations of using a college career in hockey as a means to enter into professional

sports as do many college students.

B

Knelman Is Recruited To Play Hockey At Middlebury.

14. Given Knelman s skill and talent as a hockey player, Knelman could have

considered a NCAA Division I college. However, Knelman was interested in attending a smaller

liberal arts college where he could continue to excel academically as he had done in high school.

15. the spring of 2009, Knelman contacted Coach Beaney at Middlebury, as well

as the hockey coaches at two other NCAA Division III colleges, and informed them of his

interest in attending a NCAA Division III college and playing hockey. Middlebury s hockey

coaching staffwas very enthusiastic about Knelman s interest in Middlebury and immediately

recruited him to attend Middlebury.

16. Knelman told Middlebury coaching staff that he was interested in improving his

hockey skills and pursuing a professional hockey career following college. The Middlebury

AVEL AND SHEA


O. Box 369

VERMONT

54 2 369

4



5/33

coaching staff assured Knelman that Middlebury was committed to proactively assisting student-

athletes in seeking positions on professional hockey teams.

C. Knelman Decides To Attend Middlebury Based Upon Middlebury s Representations

That HeWould Be Able To Pursue His Academic Interest

Environmental Studies And

Have A Position On The Hockey Team.

17. During the recruitment process, Middlebury coaching and admissions staff

represented to Knelman that as a student at Middlebury, he would be able to pursue his academic

interest in environmental studies as well as play on the hockey team. Middlebury represented to

him that academic excellence was a top priority for its student-athletes. Knelman was well

aware that many colleges and universities did not share this same priority for its student-athletes.

After carefully considering his college choice, Knelman decided to attend Middlebury, relying

upon Middlebury s representations and commitments that the college would permit him to both

focus on his studies and play hockey.

18. The Middlebury coaching faculty was thrilled with Knelman s decision,

informing Knelman by email on April 10, 2009 that [i]t will be an experience you will never

forget. Its [sic] a special place and program. .

We have an outstanding class coming in and

look forward to getting us back on top. We expect you will be a big part

of

it. (A copy

of

this

email is attached as Exhibit 1.)

19. On May 5, 2009 the Middlebury Admissions Committee represented to Knelman

that Middlebury is, perhaps above all, a close-knit and collaborative community, one that

depends upon its students, faculty, and staff to learn from each other, to care for each other, and

to create opportunities for all to grow. (A copy

of

this email is attached as Exhibit 2.)

NDSHEA


O Box 369

VERMONT

- 5 -



6/33

20. Like all student-athletes with the potential for playing professional sports after

college, Knelman relied upon the Middlebury faculty, coaches and athletic department to assist

in his success.

D. The NCAA Division Ill s Rules And Regulations Require Middlebury And Its Coaches

To Emphasize The Academic Achievement Of Student-Athletes, Treat Them Fairly, And

Have Policies In Place To Ensure This Occurs.

21. The NCAA is a voluntary non-profit association whose members such as

Middlebury agree to honor certain conditions and obligations

of

membership, including the

obligation to conduct their institutional athletic programs in a manner consistent with the

NCAA s rules and regulations. Specifically, the NCAA Division Manual provides:

2 8 Responsibility of Institution

Each institution shall omply

with all applicable rules and regulations of the Association in the

conduct of its intercollegiate athletics programs.

shall monitor its

progr ms to ssure ompli n e and to identify and report to the

Association instances in which compliance has not been achieved.

In any such instance, the institution shall cooperate fully with the

Association and shall take appropriate corrective actions. Members

of

an institution s staff, student-athletes, and other individuals and

groups representing the institution s athletics interests shall comply

with the applicable Association rules, and the member institution

shall be responsible for such compliance.

A copy of this excerpt from the NCAA Division III Manual is attached as Exhibit 3 at page 4

emphasis added).)

22. The NCAA Division Ill s Philosophy Statement places a primary emphasis on the

student-athlete s educational experience:

Colleges and universities in Division place highest priority on

the overall quality

of

the educational experience and on the

successful completion

of

all students academic programs. They

seek to establish and maintain an environment in which a student

athlete s athletics activities are conducted as an integral part of the

student-athlete s educational experience, and in which coaches

playa significant role as educators.

AN D

SHEA


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

- 6 -



7/33

To achieve this end, Division III institutions:

(d) Encourage the development

of

sportsmanship and positive

societal attitudes in all constituents, including student

athletes, coaches, administrative personnel and spectators;

(f) Assure that the actions

of

coaches and administrators

exhibit fairness, openness and honesty in their relationships

with student-athletes;

(h) Assure that athletics programs support the institution s

educational mission by financing, staffing and controlling

the programs through the same general procedures as other

departments

of

the institution.

(A copy

of

the NCAA Division Ill s Philosophy Statement is attached as Exhibit

3

at pages vii

216-217.)

23. The NCAA Division

Ill s

Philosophy Statement is embedded in all

of

its rules

and regulations, including its Principles for Conduct ofIntercollegiate Athletics which provides,

in part:

2.2.1 Overall Educational Experience.

is the

r sponsi ility of

each member institution to establish and maintain an environment

in which a student-athlete s activities are conducted as an integral

part of the student-athlete s educational experience.

2.2.4 Student Athlete/Coach Relationship. is the

r sponsi ility of

each member institution to establish and maintain

an environment that fosters a positive relationship between the

student-athlete and coach.

2.2.5 Fairness Openness and Honesty. is the

r sponsi ility of

each member institution to ensure that coaches and administrators

exhibit fairness, openness and honesty in their relationships with

student-athletes.

(A copy

of

the NCAA Division

Ill s

Principles for Conduct

of

Intercollegiate Athletics is

attached as Exhibit 3 at pages 3-5.)

AND

SHEA


O. Box 369

VERMONT

- 7 -



8/33

24. As a

N

Division

member, Middlebury is required to have in place policies

to ensure that its coaches adhere to the fundamental values of respect, civility, honesty and

responsibility:

4 THE PRINCIPLE OF SPORTSMANSHIP AND

ETHICAL CONDUCT

For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development

of

participants, to enhance the integrity

of

higher education and to

promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others

associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere

to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty

and responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in

athletics participation but also in the broad spectrum

of

activities

affecting the athletics program. is the responsibility

of

each

institution to:

(a) Establish policies for sportsmanship and ethical conduct in

intercollegiate athletics consistent with the educational

mission and goals

of

the institution; and

(b) Educate, on a continuing basis, all constituencies about the

policies in 2.4.

(A copy

of

this excerpt from the NCAA Division

Manual is attached as Exhibit 3 at page 4.)

Similarly, Constitution Article 3.2.1.3 provides: The institution s athletics programs shall

reflect the establishment and maintenance

of

high standards of personal honor, eligibility and fair

play.

Id

at page 9.)

25. As a member

of

the N Division III, Middlebury coaches are required to:

act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that

intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institution and they, as

individuals, represent the honor and dignity

of

fair play and the

generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome

competitive sports.

(A copy

of

this Bylaw Article 11.1.1 Standards

of

Honesty and Sportsmanship from the NCAA

Division

Manual is attached as Exhibit 3 at page 47.)

ND SHEA


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

- 8 -



9/33

26. A coach found in violation of the NCAA rules and regulations shall be subject to

disciplinary or corrective action as set forth in the provisions of the NCAA enforcement

procedures. (A copy

of

this Bylaw Article 11.1.2 Responsibility for Violations

of

NCAA

Regulations is attached as Exhibit 3 at page 47.) Contracts between a coach and Middlebury are

required to include a provision acknowledging the authority of the NCAA to take disciplinary or

corrective action, including suspension without payor termination of employment. (A copy of

this Regulation 11.2.1 Stipulation That NCAA Enforcement Provisions Apply is attached as

Exhibit 3 at page 48.)

E. Consistent With The NCAA s Standards, Middlebury Has Policies That,

If

Followed,

Should Protect Student-Athletes From Arbitrary And Capricious Faculty Conduct.

27. Middlebury promised its students, including student-athletes such as Knelman,

that the college has high community standards for all members of its community, including

faculty and staff, consistent with the NCAA s standards. Middlebury s Community Standards

and General Policies provides:

Middlebury College requires all its faculty staff and students to

adhere to certain policies and regulations These regulations,

which differ for different segments of the College community, are

all designed to further the educational goals of the College. The

College s central purpose is to develop the life of the mind in the

fullest sense; to foster clear and critical thinking; to disseminate

valuable information; to facilitate research; and to enrich the

imagination, broaden sympathy, and deepen insight. The College

seeks to help each student develop the capacity to contribute to

society and find personal fulfillment. Whatever promotes learning

and human growth is encouraged by the College; whatever hinders

it is opposed.

(A copy ofMiddlebury s Community Standards and General Policies is attached as Exhibit 4

(emphasis added).)

N

SHEA


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

- 9 -



10/33

28. One of the policies that Middlebury requires all of its faculty and staffto follow is

the Code

of Conduct which requires:

Middlebury faculty and staff should conduct themselves ethically

honestly and with integrity in all dealings They need to be fair

and principled in their official interactions and to act in good faith

in these matters with others both within and outside the Middlebury

community They should act with due recognition

their position

trust and loyalty with respect to the College and its students,

fellow employees, research sponsors, and donors. When in doubt

about the propriety

of

a proposed course

of

action, they should seek

counsel from those colleagues, supervisors, or administrators who

can assist in determining the right and appropriate course of

conduct.

(A copy

of

Middlebury s Code

of

Conduct is attached as Exhibit 5 (emphasis added).)

29. Consistent with this Code

of

Conduct, Middlebury s College Handbook requires

all members of the College community to respect the dignity, freedom, and rights of others.

Violence in word or deed against another, defamation, are all considered serious offenses.

(A copy of this portion ofMiddlebury s College Handbook is attached as Exhibit 4.)

30. In its College Handbook, Middlebury also prohibits all hazing activities which is

defined as:

any act committed by a person against a student

maintaining membership in any organization which is affiliated

with an educational institution; and which is intended to have the

effect of, or should reasonably be expected to have the effect of,

humiliating, intimidating or demeaning the student.

Middlebury s policy provides: Hazing activity occurring on or off the Middlebury College

campus may lead to disciplinary proceedings with penalties for the individuals involved up to

and including suspension or expulsion. Activities believed to be hazing are to be reported to a

Commons Dean, Director

of

Athletics or the Dean

of

the College. (A copy

of

this portion

of

Middlebury s College Handbook is attached as Exhibit 4.)

AND

SHEA


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

54 2 369

- 10 -



11/33

31. Middlebury has a lengthy procedure that the college follows when a student is

accused

of

conduct that could lead to disciplinary action such as probation, suspension or

expulsion. Middlebury commits in its College Handbook to affording due process to such

students charged. Middlebury has procedures designed

to assure fundamental fairness

and to protect students from arbitrary or capricious disciplinary action. The College Handbook

provides that the outcome of all disciplinary proceedings shall be reported in general terms to

the community Such reporting will be done in a way that ensures the confidentiality

of

the

proceedings and does not reveal the identities

of

involved individuals. (A copy

of

this portion

of

Middlebury s College Handbook is attached as Exhibit 6.)

32. Middlebury also has an Athletic Mission Statement which emphasizes the

importance of the educational experience that student-athletes attending Middlebury should

have. The Athletic Mission Statement provides that: Athletics are an essential part

of

the

overall educational experience at Middlebury College. One

of

the Basic Principles governing

intercollegiate athletics at Middlebury is that intercollegiate athletics be kept in harmony with

the educational purposes of the institution.

It

is the responsibility of the Director of Athletics, in

consultation with the Dean of the College, to administer rules consistent with this policy. (A

copy

of Middlebury s Athletic Mission Statement is attached as Exhibit 7.)

33. As a member of the coaching faculty, Coach Beaney is expected to be actively

supportive in insuring that [his] students opportunity to excel in their academic pursuits is

always viewed as being

of

paramount importance. (A copy of the Rules

of

Reappointment for

Physical Education Faculty are attached as Exhibit 8.) Thus, Coach Beaney is expected to be

committed to Middlebury s Mission Statement, NESCAC Mission Statement and the NCAA

Division III philosophy, and adhere to Middlebury s and the NC s rules and policies. (ld.)

N SHE


O Box 369

VERMONT



12/33

F. Knelman's First Year As A Student-Athlete At Middlebury Was Consistent With

Middlebury's Representations.

34. During the 2009-2010 academic year at Middlebury, Knelman excelled both

academically and as a member

of

the college's hockey team. Knelman received college honors

both semesters, including recognition on the Dean's List and as a College Scholar. Knelman was

also a significant contributor on the hockey team.

35. Based upon the representations and commitment that Middlebury College made to

him as a student-athlete, Knelman paid 52,120 for tuition, room and board to attend Middlebury

for the 2010-2011academic year and to participate in the Middlebury hockey program.

G. Coach Beaney Arbitrarily And Capriciously Suspended Knelman From The Hockey

Team On January 18,2011.

36. Knelman began the 2010-2011 hockey season ready and eager to play on the

Middlebury team. By January 2011, the team had a less than a .500 record. Although the team

was not doing well, Knelman was a lead scorer.

37. Middlebury had a hockey alumni weekend scheduled for January 14-16,2011. A

week

or

so before the alumni weekend, Coach Beaney informed the student-athletes on the

hockey team that he expected them to attend the banquet with the alumni on Saturday evening,

January 15,2011. Knelman subsequently asked Coach Beaney how long the banquet would last,

explaining that his parents were planning to visit Middlebury that weekend and they wanted to

have dinner with him on Saturday night. Coach Beaney told him the banquet should last no

longer than an hour and a half.

38. Knelman was looking forward to seeing his parents that weekend since he sees

them infrequently. He was in need of their support in dealing with some recent life-changing

N SHE


O Box 369

V R ONT

- 12 -



13/33

events. A good family friend had recently had a heart attack and his girlfriend s father had

received a very poor cancer prognosis.

39. Knelman s father arrived to visit Knelman on Friday January 14 2011.

Knelman s mother was unable to travel to Middlebury that weekend due to a snowstorm.

40. On Friday January 14 2011 the Middlebury hockey team tied in a game that the

team was expected to win. On Saturday January 15 2011 Middlebury lost a game to Weslyan

which was a first. Middlebury s hockey team had never lost to Weslyan before. Coach Beaney

made it known that he was very unhappy with the team s performance.

41. Knelman attended the alumni banquet on Saturday January 15 2011 which

began at 5:30 p.m. Contrary to the information Coach Beaney had given Knelman the banquet

lasted well over an hour and a half. After two and a half hours shortly after 8:00 p.m. the only

items left on the banquet program were an open mike session for alumni to tell stories about their

Middlebury hockey team experience and a brief closing address. Because Knelman s father had

been waiting quite awhile for him Knelman decided he needed to leave the banquet. Knelman

left the banquet with no incident. Knelman had no indication from anyone - his teammates or

coaches - that his departure from the banquet caused any problem or difficulty with the alumni

or anyone else.

42. On Monday January 17 2011 with no warning whatsoever Coach Beaney called

a team meeting and proceeded to humiliate and intimidate Knelman in front of all of his

teammates because Knelman had left the alumni banquet before everyone else. Among other

things Coach Beaney said that Knelman s departure from the banquet was selfish. He called on

one of Knelman s teammates to comment about what he thought about Knelman s departure

from the banquet. Believing that he had no choice but to support Coach Beaney the teammate

AND SHEA


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

54 2 369



14/33

said that it was selfish and that Knelman should not have left the banquet. (The teammate later

apologized to Knelman, and told Knelman that he felt pressured by Coach Beaney to say this.)

As the meeting continued, Coach Beaney asked every player to express their view of how they

could tu m around the season except when it was Knelman s tum, Coach Beaney interrupted

Knelman, saying that he did not deserve the right to speak and he directed Knelman to sit down.

Knelman was stunned with Coach Beaney s bullying and humiliating treatment of him.

43. After the coaches left the meeting, Knelman told the team that he had not

intended to hurt the team by leaving the banquet, and he apologized

ifhis

departure appeared as

ifhe did. That evening Knelman contacted each hockey player individually to let them know

how much he cared about the team and, again, he said that he had not intended to hurt the team

by leaving the banquet. Each team member was supportive of Knelman and did not have any

concerns about his commitment to the team.

44. On the morning of January 18,2011 Knelman went to the ice rink to talk to the

coaches about what had happened. After waiting for an hour for Coach Beaney to finish

teaching a class, Knelman was able to talk to Coach Beaney briefly and tell him that he was

sorry for what had happened. Coach Beaney was rude and dismissive of Knelman.

45. Prior to the team s practice that afternoon, Charlie Strauss ( Strauss ) (the team

captain) informed Knelman by telephone that he would not be permitted to practice with the

team that day or be in the locker room with other team members. Strauss told Knelman that a

decision would be made later about Knelman s status for the rest ofthe week.

46. The next day, on January 19,2011 Knelman was informed that he had been

suspended from the team through the weekend.

A ND SHEA


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

- 14 -



15/33

47. On Thursday, January 20,2011 the team captains approached Knelman following

a meeting they had with Coach Beaney. Bryan Curran ( Curran ), whom had been completely

supportive of Knelman earlier in the week, told Knelman that he questioned his commitment to

the team and thought he was selfish. Knelman was shocked by Curran s comments. Curran

subsequently told Knelman to move his equipment out of the locker room which he did.

48. Even though Knelman was devastated by Coach Beaney s treatment of him, he

attended as a spectator the hockey games that weekend, and greeted and congratulated the team

on their victories after the games.

49. Late on Sunday, January 23, 2011, Strauss informed Knelman that he would be

back on the team the next day. Knelman was thrilled to hear this and he talked with Strauss

about ways to help improve the team s performance.

H

Coach Beaney Arbitrarily And Capriciously Dismissed Knelman From The Hockey

Team On January 24,2011.

50. On Monday, January 24,2011, Knelman learned from Strauss that when Coach

Beaney heard that the captains wanted Knelman back on the team, Coach Beaney said he would

follow up with them later about it.

51. Later that day, Coach Beaney informed Knelman during a meeting in Coach

Beaney s office that Knelman was dismissed from the team for the rest

of the season and that he

should turn his equipment in within forty-eight hours. When Knelman asked Coach Beaney why

he was taking this action towards him, Coach Beaney responded, You have a lot

of

things on

your plate and I just don t think hockey is a priority. Knelman tried to explain to Coach Beaney

that he was wrong but Coach Beaney would hear none of it, stating that Knelman was attending

Middlebury for its Environmental Studies Program, not for the hockey program. When Knelman

asked whether Coach Beaney s decision was because

of

his departure from the banquet, Coach

N SHE


O Box 369

V RMONT

- 15 -



16/33

Beaney responded that the banquet was part

of

the reason but we had problems with you last

year throughout, and you re just not committed to this. You weren t happy with your position,

you just didn t care. When Knelman replied, So therefore I must be the most selfish and

uncommitted player on the team, Coach Beaney said, Pretty much, from what I see and from

those who I have talked to I have come to that conclusion. Completely devastated, Knelman

asked, So this is it, over? Coach Beaney responded, As far as I can see. Maybe if a good

portion of your team steps forward for you, maybe I will consider something, but yes it s done.

Knelman left the meeting shocked and very upset.

52. Knelman had not broken any team, college, conference or NCAA rule that would

disqualify him from continuing to participate on the team. Nevertheless, Coach Beaney had

summarily dismissed him from the team.

53. During the next few days, numerous members of the hockey team told Coach

Beaney that they strongly disagreed with his decision to dismiss Knelman from the team. In

response, Coach Beaney initially responded that it was not his decision alone and only an

unanimous decision by the team could change Knelman s dismissed status. Later, as it became

clear to Coach Beaney that Knelman may have unanimous support from his teammates, Coach

Beaney switched his explanation, indicating to the team that it was his decision to dismiss

Knelman. At a team meeting and in discussions with individual student-athletes, when

explaining the reason for his dismissal of Knelman, Coach Beaney said this was not an isolated

incident. Eventually, Coach Beaney told Knelman s teammates that he may be right, he may be

wrong but his door is closed and Knelman is indefinitely

off the team. He told Knelman s

teammates, you can either sit and dwell on it, or you can get over it, case closed.

AND SHEA


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

54 2 369

6



17/33

54. Coach Beaney had falsely accused Knelman of not being committed to the

Middlebury hockey program. In addition, Knelman knew that Coach Beaney s decision to

summarily dismiss him from the team because he was too devoted to his studies was contrary to

several

of

Middlebury s policies relating to student-athletes.

To No Avail, Knelman Complains To Middlebury s Administration About Coach

Beaney s Unfair Treatment OfHim.

55. On Tuesday, January 25, 2011, Knelman began his first ofmany efforts to have

Middlebury address Coach Beaney s arbitrary and capricious treatment of him. Knelman first

consulted his academic advisor JeffHowarth ( Howarth ). At Howarth s suggestion, Knelman

contacted Professor Peter Nelson ( Nelson ), the Chair

of

the Geography Department. Knelman

also informed Ian Sutherland ( Sutherland ), the Dean

of

Cook Commons and Professor

of

Classics, and Tamar Mayer, a Professor ofGeography, about what had occurred and they both

were sympathetic and supportive ofKnelman.

56. Knelman met with Nelson on January 27,2011 and informed him of his dismissal

from the hockey team. In response, Nelson was supportive

of

Knelman challenging Coach

Beaney s decision, and Nelson expressed concerns to Knelman about Coach Beaney s treatment

of

student-athletes that continued unchecked by the college. Nelson suggested a meeting with

Erin Quinn, Middlebury s Athletic Director.

57. On January 28, 2011, at this point only days after Coach Beaney had dismissed

Knelman from the hockey team, Knelman met with Quinn, Howarth and Nelson, and told Quinn

about what had happened. In response to Quinn s question about what Knelman wanted from

their discussion, Knelman replied that he did not see how he could play under Coach Beaney

again given Coach Beaney s erratic and unfair treatment of

him and others, and he needed to talk

the situation over with his parents during the inter-semester break. Knelman told Quinn that

RAVEL AND SHEA


. O. Box 369

INGTON. VERMONT

54 2 369

- 17 -



18/33

there needed to be a process in place to protect the student-athlete from this type of arbitrary

behavior from a coach. Howarth questioned why Middlebury did not have a process for the

dismissal of a student-athlete from a team comparable to the process provided to a student failing

academically. Quinn acknowledged that there had been recent talk about such a process for

student-athletes but for the moment there was no process at Middlebury to protect the student-

athlete from the arbitrary and capricious decisions of a coach.

58. From January 28, 2011 through February 7, 2011 Knelman was off campus for

the inter-semester break.

59. While on break, Knelman contacted members

of

Middlebury s Athletic Policy

Committee requesting a hearing to address what had happened to him, and he was referred to

Shirley Collado ( Collado ), the Dean of Students. Knelman scheduled to meet with both

Collado and Associate Dean Karen Guttentag ( Guttentag ) on February 8, 2011 but only

Guttentag was able to attend. Upon hearing what had happened to him, Guttentag said it seemed

out of line given what the college stood for and that she would report to Collado. Guttentag also

suggested that Knelman contact Alexa Euler ( Euler ), a Human Resources representative

liaison to the Physical Education and Athletics Department. When Knelman saw Guttentag later

that week, she told Knelman that what had happened was wrong and she was on his side.

60. On February 11,2011 Knelman met with Euler whom informed him that she did

not handle issues involving student-athletes and faculty. She subsequently informed Knelman by

email that the most appropriate venue for you to resolve this situation is with Erin Quinn. (A

copy of this email is attached as Exhibit 9.) She told Knelman that Karen [GuttentagJ also told

me that she was happy to continue to advise you. Please be in touch with her

if

you have

questions about next steps from here. ld.

AVEL AND SHEA


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

54 2 369

- 18 -



19/33

61. On February

14,2011

Knelman met with Kathy Morse ( Morse ), the

Head

of

the Environmental Studies Department. Morse was upset with

Coach

Beaney s treatment

of

Knelman and she encouraged Knelman to contact the campus

newspaper

to expose the problem.

62. During

Knelman s

discussions about his dismissal from the

hockey

team,

Knelman learned that several student-athletes have complained about Coach

Beaney s

arbitrary

and capricious treatment

of them

to no avail. On information and belief, Middlebury has never

disciplined

Coach Beaney

or addressed these serious issues with him.

1. Knelman

Makes

A Formal Written Complaint About Coach

Beaney s

Unfair Treatment

Of

Him.

63. At Guttentag s suggestion, Knelman prepared a letter to

Quinn

setting out his

complaint about

Coach

Beaney. Howarth, Sutherland and Guttentag all reviewed drafts of the

complaint and

provided Knelman

with suggestions.

64. On February 15,2011 Knelman sent his formal complaint about

Coach

Beaney by

email to Quinn. Knelman made a complaint pursuant to Middlebury s Code

of

Conduct

requiring all Middlebury faculty to

conduct

themselves ethically, honestly and with integrity in

all dealings and

to

be fair and principled in their official interactions and to act in good faith.

(A copy of

Knelman s

formal complaint is attached as Exhibit 10.) Knelman requested that an

investigation of

Coach

Beaney s arbitrary action be

commenced

immediately and that

Middlebury make the necessary reports to the appropriate authorities. Knelman informed all of

the Middlebury faculty and administrators with whom he

had

been in contact of hi s formal

complaint.

65.

Knelman

also provided Robert Clagett ( Clagett ), the

Dean of

Admissions, with

a copy

of

his complaint.

When Knelman

spoke to Clagett about his complaint, Clagett was

supportive and said

Knelman

was doing a service to the school by making a formal complaint .

AND

SHEA


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

- 19 -



20/33

66. On Saturday, February 19,2011, Knelman attended Middlebury s hockey game

as a spectator and saw Quinn at the game. Quinn told Knelman that he and Tim Spears

( Spears ), the Vice President

of

Administration, would head up an investigation into

Knelman s complaint.

67. The next Friday, February 24, 2011, Knelman met with Spears and Nelson.

Spears was not receptive to Knelman, rolling his eyes and covering his face during the meeting.

Knelman informed Spears that the outcome that he sought was: (a) a process in place to protect

other student-athletes at Middlebury; (b) a letter to Knelman s future employers stating that

Knelman had been wrongly dismissed from the hockey team; and (c) a suspension ofCoach

Beaney for the next academic year 2011-2012. Knelman informed Spears that he could not play

on the team again under Coach Beaney.

68. On March 2, 2011 Knelman met with Quinn for two hours, and Quinn attempted

to persuade Knelman that his complaint would be considered in the normal review process

of

Coach Beaney when his contract was next up for renewal. In the short term, Quinn suggested

that Knelman pursue a mediated meeting with Coach Beaney. Quinn agreed to provide

Knelman with a letter the next week that Knelman could use with prospective employers to

explain what had happened. Knelman understood Quinn intended to provide Knelman with a

letter stating that (a) Coach Beaney had improperly used his authority over Knelman as he had

done in the past with other players; (b) there was no process in place to prevent this; (c) as a

result, Knelman was not ensured a fair process; and (d) Knelman had not done anything to justify

his dismissal from the team. Other than providing Knelman with this letter for prospective

employers, Knelman left the meeting, with an understanding that Middlebury administration had

N SHE


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

54 2 369

- 2



21/33

no intention

of

taking any corrective action with Coach Beaney to remedy his arbitrary and

capricious decision to dismiss Knelman from the team.

69. The next day, Quinn informed Knelman that he had talked to Coach Beaney and

Quinn suggested the following:

[Coach Beaney] would like to talk to you about these issues

directly with you. You are not required to do so, we can pursue

any

of

the possibilities we pursued yesterday, or you may meet

with him and we may still pursue those. I think in a perfect world,

the player and the coach sit down together and work out their

differences, but if that is not a possibility we can pursue other

options.

(A copy ofQuinn s email to Knelman is attached as Exhibit 11.) Knelman responded that he

would like to pursue the option of a mediated meeting with Coach Beaney but would like to

meet with Quinn beforehand to discuss the process for the mediation, and he reminded Quinn of

the letter he intended to provide Knelman.

Id.

70. A week later, on March 9, 2011 in another meeting with Knelman, Quinn

informed Knelman that he did not believe it was in Knelman s best interests when he was

seeking employment to have a letter addressing his dismissal from the hockey team. Quinn

offered instead to serve as a reference and suggested that Knelman fabricate a story in a job

interview when asked why he no longer played hockey, suggesting that he say he had decided to

stop playing hockey to pursue other things such as academics. Knelman was taken aback that

Quinn would encourage him to lie about what had happened to him. When Knelman asked

Quinn how he would respond to a prospective employer s question about why Knelman was

dismissed from the hockey team, Quinn said, well, I guess I would have to say it was because

you left the banquet. Again, Knelman was shocked that Quinn considered this a reasonable

resolution to the permanent damage that Coach Beaney had done to Knelman s prospects of

N

SHE


O Box 69

URLINGTON.

V R ONT

5402-0369

- 21 -



22/33

playing professional hockey or obtaining employment. Quinn did acknowledge during the

meeting that Coach Beaney had treated Knelman unfairly and there was a lack

of

any meaningful

process to address the wrongs that were done to him. When Knelman pressed Quinn to provide

him with the letter they had previously discussed, Quinn responded that he would prepare one for

him by the end

of

the week.

K

Middlebury Does Nothing To Remedy The Harm Done To Knelman And Informs

Knelman That The Matter Is A Private Personnel Matter Between Middlebury And

Coach Beaney.

71. On March 15, 2011 Quinn sent Knelman a summary which was provided to

summarize a few of the important details regarding your dismissal from the men s ice hockey

team and Quinn confirmed that

if

you wish to return to the team it will be with Coach Beaney

as the coach next year. (A copy of the cover email and memo is attached as Exhibit 12.) Quinn

stated in his memo:

AND

SHEA


O Box 369

VERMONT

At the time of your dismissal the Department

of

Athletics had begun

discussions to implement a system by which coaches would be required to

report any potential suspensions or dismissals to the Director

of

Athletics

before they took any action

of

this type.

This system was not in place at the time you were dismissed from the

team.

This system would ensure due process , requiring that a coach either

make the case for dismissal based on dismissal with cause or a

demonstrated and documented progressive discipline which would

justify the dismissal.

Due to the fact that this system was not in place, there was no assurance

that these criteria were met, and

if

the coach believed they were met, there

was no assurance that the reasons were well documented and

communicated in a clear fashion. In your case it is evident that the coach

did not clearly communicate a pattern ofmisbehavior, nor did you commit

an egregious act that would have led to your dismissal by cause .

Finally, as you know, the coach has dismissed players in the past, or sent

them to the B team (which was not an option for you at the time since the

-



23/33

B season had ended.) Those players have been welcome to return to the

team; in fact, it is not uncommon that these players return and excel in the

program. You may set up an appointment with Coach Beaney to discuss

returning to the team if you wish. I am happy to facilitate setting up that

meeting.

Id. Knelman was astounded and disappointed with Quinn s response, and informed Quinn of

his reaction to Quinn condoning Coach Beaney s treatment of him and other student-athletes. (A

copy

of

Knelman s March 16,2011 letter to Quinn is attached as Exhibit 13.) was clear to

Knelman that Middlebury had no intention

of

either affirming that he should not have been

dismissed from the hockey team or taking any meaningful corrective action to address Coach

Beaney s arbitrary, erratic and unfair treatment of him or other student-athletes.

72. Upon reviewing Quinn s summary memo, Morse, the Head

of

the Environmental

Studies Department, wrote to Knelman: Director Quinn s response DOES admit that the Coach

was in the wrong, and that your suspension from the team was unjustified. He also admits that

the system is lacking and that new rules and procedures will be put in place - a clear admission

that all is not well in the way the coach s power was used in this case. (A copy

of

Morse s

March 20, 2011 email is included in the attached Exhibit 14.) Morse suggested to Knelman that

he could return to the hockey team next year. Id. Knelman considered this an untenable

solution given that Coach Beaney had not been disciplined and would be continuing to coach the

team. Id.

73. Knelman made several attempts to persuade Quinn to take affirmative action to

protect its student athletes from the arbitrary and capricious conduct ofCoach Beaney. (A copy

ofKnelman s correspondence with Quinn is attached as Exhibits 15 16.) Even though Quinn

indicated a willingness to meet again with Knelman, Quinn shut down further discussions by

N

SHE


.O . Box 369

VERMONT

- 23 -



24/33

informing him that

how

we handle this with Coach Beaney is a private personnel matter. (A

copy

of

Quinn s April 1, 2011 email to Knelman is included with Exhibit 16.)

74. Middlebury has stood by while Coach Beaney ruined Knelman s hockey career,

and irreparably harmed Knelman s reputation with his teammates and friends, the college

community, and the hockey community at large.

L

Defendants Actions Have Destroyed Knelman s Hockey Career And Irreparably

Harmed His Employment Opportunities.

75. By being dismissed from the Middlebury hockey team mid-season, Knelman lost

one year

of

eligibility to play

NCAA

hockey and he now has only one year

of

eligibility left.

76. Given the substantial financial investment that his family has made in his

undergraduate education at Middlebury, Knelman has no choice but to finish his undergraduate

degree at Middlebury, rather than undertaking a transfer as a senior to another college.

77. As long as Coach Beaney s erratic and unfair treatment

of

Knelman and other

student-athletes is unrestrained by Middlebury, it is not a viable option for Knelman to play on

the Middlebury hockey team again. As a result, Knelman s opportunity to play intercollegiate

hockey is over.

78. Further, Knelman s opportunity to play hockey professionally has been

irreparably harmed and will continue to be irreparably harmed as a result

of

Defendants actions.

Accordingly, Knelman has suffered and will suffer a substantial loss

of

income. This injury is

substantial and not readily capable

of

being measured in dollars and cents.

79. In addition, Knelman will be irreparably harmed in the future as a result of

Defendants actions when he is seeking employment and needs to disclose Coach Beaney s

defamatory statements about him when asked why he stopped playing hockey in the middle

of

the season in 2011.

N SHE


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

-

24



25/33

COUNT I

Breach

of

Contract Against Middlebury

80. Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if

fully set forth herein.

81. Knelman and Middlebury are parties to a contract, the terms

of

which are set out

in the official statements, policies and publications of Middlebury.

82. Knelman applied to and enrolled in Middlebury in reliance on the understanding

and expectation that Middlebury would implement and enforce the policies in its College

Manual.

83. Middlebury is contractually bound to the promises it has made its students such as

Knelman as set forth in the College Manual.

84. Middlebury promised that its intercollegiate athletics is kept in harmony with

the educational purposes of the institution and Middlebury promised that Coach Beaney would

be actively supportive in insuring that [his] students opportunity to excel in their academic

pursuits is always viewed as being of paramount importance. Consistent with this Basic

Principle, Middlebury promised to provide Knelman with an opportunity to pursue an

undergraduate college degree as well as participate in intercollegiate hockey.

85. Middlebury promised that its faculty, including Coach Beaney, would adhere to

its Code

of

Conduct which requires its faculty to conduct themselves ethically, honestly and

with integrity in all dealings and [t]hey need to be fair and principled in their official

interactions and to act in good faith.

86. Middlebury promised that its faculty, including Coach Beaney, would respect

Knelman s dignity and rights, and not defame him.

RAVEL AND SHEA


P. O. Box 369

VERMONT

54 2 369

- 25 -



26/33

87. Middlebury promised that it prohibits hazing activities, including acts intended to

have the effect of, or should reasonably be expected to have the effect of, humiliating,

intimidating or demeaning a student such as Knelman, and Middlebury promised to sanction or

discipline members

of

the Middlebury community, including coaches

of

its intercollegiate

hockey team such as Coach Beaney, for acts

of

hazing.

88. Middlebury promi se d in its College Manual to comply wi th the NCAA

Division

Ill s

rules and regulations which require Middlebury to:

a) assure that the actions

of

its coaches and administrators exhibit fairness,

openness and honesty in their relationships with student-athletes;

b) have policies to ensure that its coaches adhere to the fundamental values

of respect, civility, honesty and responsibility; and

c) establish and maintain an environment in which a student-athlete s

activities are conducted as an integral part

of

the student-athlete s

educational experience.

89. Middlebury breached its contract with Knelman by:

N SHE


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

a)

b)

c)

d

e)

f

g)

not requiring Coach Beaney to be supportive

of

Knelman s academic

pursuits, and permitting Coach Beaney to dismiss Knelman from the

hockey

team because, in Coach Beaney s view, Knelman was more

interested in his studies than hockey;

not permitting Knelman to pursue both his academics and playing hockey;

Coach

Beaney s

breach

of

Middlebury s Code

of

Conduct;

Coach

Beaney s

arbitrary and capricious dismissal

of

Knelman from the

hockey team;

Coach Beaney s defamation

of

Knelman;

Coach Beaney s hazing of Knelman; and

admittedly failing to have a policy in place to ensure that Coach Beaney

both exhibited fairness, openness and honesty towards Knelman and

adhered to the fundamental values

of

respect, civility, honesty and

responsibility.

- 26



27/33

90. The actions ofMiddlebury and its employees, including Coach Beaney, are

material breaches

of

its contract with Knelman.

91. Knelman applied to and accepted Middlebury s offer of admission, and paid

tuition and other fees and expenses, in reliance on the understanding that Middlebury would

fulfill its contractual obligations as set forth above. As a result

of the actions and omissions of

Defendants, Knelman was denied the benefit ofhis bargain.

92. As a direct and proximate result ofMiddlebury s breaches, Knelman has suffered

actual and consequential damages in excess of 75,000, the exact amount

of

which will be

proven at trial, including, but not limited to, irreparable reputational harm, severe emotional

distress, economic injuries, loss of athletic opportunities, both intercollegiate and professional,

and loss of future career prospects.

93. Knelman seeks all appropriate equitable relief, including specific performance, in

the form of an injunction (a) requiring Middlebury to reinstate Knelman as a player in good

standing on the hockey team; (b) enjoining Defendants from representing to Knelman s

teammates, fellow students or any member of the public that Knelman did anything wrong that

resulted in his dismissal from the team; and (c) requiring Middlebury to hold a public hearing on

Knelman s complaint that Coach Beaney violated Middlebury s Code ofConduct when he

arbitrarily, capriciously and unfairly dismissed Knelman from the hockey team.

N

SHE


O Box 369

VERMONT

- 2 7 -



28/33

COUNT II

Breach of Covenant ofGood Faith and Fair Dealing Against Middlebury

94. Plaintiff restates and realleges the allegations

of

the preceding paragraphs as if


95. Middlebury and Knelman entered into a contract. Vermont law implies a

covenant

of

good faith and fair dealing into every contract.

96. Middlebury owed Knelman a duty

of

good faith and fair dealing in performing

and carrying out its contract with Knelman.

97. By its acts and omissions described above, Middlebury has breached its covenant

of

good faith and fair dealing.

98. As a direct and proximate result

of

Middlebury s breach of the covenant of good

faith and fair dealing, Knelman is entitled to equitable relief, injunctive relief, and actual and

consequential damages in excess of 75,000, the exact amount ofwhich will be proven at trial,

including, but not limited to, irreparable reputational harm, severe emotional distress, economic

injuries, loss

of

athletic opportunities, both intercollegiate and professional, and loss

of

future

career prospects.

COUNT III

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Middlebury


of



100. As a college in which Knelman has placed trust and confidence and which is in a

position

of

power over him, Middlebury owed a fiduciary duty to Knelman, specifically,

AND SHEA


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

54 2 369

- 28 -



29/33

including, but not limited to, the duty to act in Knelman's best interests and with the highest

standards

of

integrity and good faith in its dealings with Knelman.

101. By its above-described actions and omissions, Middlebury breached its fiduciary

duty owing to Knelman.

102. As a direct and proximate result ofMiddlebury's breach of fiduciary duty,

Knelman is entitled to equitable relief, injunctive relief, and actual and consequential damages in

excess

of

75,000, the exact amount

of

which will be proven at trial, including, but not limited

to, irreparable reputational harm, severe emotional distress, economic injuries, loss of athletic

opportunities, both intercollegiate and professional, and loss of future career prospects.

COlThTTIV

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Beaney

103. Plaintiffrestates and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if


104. As a Middlebury faculty member and coach, in a position of power and trust and

loyalty over Knelman as stated in the College Manual, Coach Beaney owed a fiduciary duty to

Knelman, specifically, including, but not limited to, the duty to act in Knelman's best interests

and with the highest standards of integrity and good faith in Beaney's dealings with Knelman.

105. By his above-described actions and omissions, Beaney breached his fiduciary

duty owing to Knelman.

106. As a direct and proximate result ofCoach Beaney's breach of fiduciary duty,

Knelman is entitled to equitable relief, injunctive relief, and actual and consequential damages in

excess of 75,000, the exact amount ofwhich will be proven at trial, including, but not limited

GRAVEL

AND

SHEA

A


P O Box 369

BURLINGTON. VERMONT

05402 0369

- 9



30/33

to, irreparable reputational harm, severe emotional distress, economic injuries, loss

of

athletic

opportunities, both intercollegiate and professional, and loss

of

future career prospects.

COUNT V

Defamation Against Defendants


of



108. Coach Beaney has made false statements about Knelman including, without

limitation, that Knelman is selfish, Knelman had problems on the hockey team last year, the

decision leading to Knelman s dismissal was not an isolated incident, and he does not think

hockey is a priority for Knelman.

109. Coach Beaney knew that these statements were false or he made these statements

with reckless disregard for their truth.

110. Coach Beaney acted maliciously, with reckless disregard for Knelman s rights

and with the intention of causing him harm.

111. These defamatory statements were not made subject to a privilege.

112. Coach Beaney made these defamatory statements in the scope of his employment

at Middlebury.

113. Coach Beaney made these statements with the knowledge, acquiescence and

assistance ofMiddlebury, who knew or should have known the statements to be false.

114. The false and misleading statements made by Coach Beaney harmed and will

continue to harm Knelman s personal and professional reputation, injure Knelman s character,

and lower his reputation in the estimation of the community, and are, therefore, defamatory.

115.

GRAVEL

N

SHE

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

O Box 369

URLINGTON.

VERMONT

05402 0369

Knelman has been and will likely be required to self-publish the false statements.

- 30 -



31/33


of

Defendants defamation, Knelman is entitled

to equitable relief, injunctive relief, and actual and consequential damages in excess

of

75,000,

the exact amount

of

which will be proven at trial, including, but not limited to, irreparable

reputational harm, severe emotional distress, economic injuries, loss

of

athletic opportunities,

both intercollegiate and professional, and loss

of

future career prospects.

COUNT VI

Negligent Supervision

of

Coach Beaney Against Middlebury


of

the preceding paragraphs as

if


118. As alleged above, Coach Beaney committed tortious acts resulting in injury to

Knelman.

119. Middlebury knew or had reason to know

of

Coach Beaney s propensity to engage

in tortious acts

of

breach

of

the fiduciary duty owing to his students and defamation. Middlebury

was advised

of

Coach Beaney s ongoing tortious conduct and Middlebury took no action to stop,

prevent or sanction Coach Beaney, but rather condoned, approved and ratified the incidents of

tortious conduct.


of

Middlebury s negligent failure to supervise

Coach Beaney, Knelman is entitled to equitable relief, injunctive relief, and actual and

consequential damages in excess of 75,000, the exact amount

of

which will be proven at trial,

including, but not limited to, irreparable reputational harm, severe emotional distress, economic

injuries, loss

of

athletic opportunities, both intercollegiate and professional, and loss

of

future

career prospects.

GRAVEL AND

SHEA

A


P. O. Box 369

BURLINGTON. VERMONT

05402-0369

- 31 -



32/33

Claims for Relief

WHEREFORE Plaintiffprays that judgment be entered in his favor for the following

relief:

Order Defendants to reinstate Plaintiff as a player in good standing on the hockey

team and enjoin Defendants from representing that Plaintiff did anything wrong

that resulted in his dismissal from the team;

B. Order Defendant Middlebury College to hold a public hearing on Plaintiffs

complaint that Defendant William Beaney violated the College s Code

of

Conduct when he dismissed Plaintifffrom the Middlebury hockey team;

C. An award

of

damages against Defendants jointly and severally in an amount to

be determined at trial;

D. Temporary and permanent equitable and injunctive relief as deemed appropriate;

E. An award

of

costs disbursements attorneys fees and prejudgment interest as

permitted by Vermont law;

G.

AND SHEA


. O. Box 369

VERMONT

54 2 369

An award

of

punitive damages as permitted under Vermont law; and

Such other and further

relief

as the Court deems

just

and equitable.

- 32 -



33/33

JURY DEM ND

laintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all counts so triable

Dated:

Burlington, Vermont

May 11,2011

Robert F. O Neill, Esq.

Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq.

Gravel and Shea PC

76 St. Paul Street, Floor, P. O. Box 369

Burlington, VT 05402-0369

(802) 658-0220

[email protected]

[email protected]

- and

Joseph W. Anthony, Esq.

Mary L. Knoblauch, Esq.

Anthony Ostlund Baer Louwagie P.A.

90 South Seventh Street, Suite 3600

Minneapolis, MN 55402

(612) 349-6969

[email protected]

[email protected]

For Plaintiff


Documents

Complaint (VT fed dist): Knelman v Middlebury College and Bill Beaney (May 5, 2011)