James Keady v. Nike, Inc and St. John’s University

KEADY V. NIKE, INC. and ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY, 116 F. Supp. 2d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), 23 Fed. Appx. 29 (2nd Cir. 2001).

Background Information James Keady was a graduate assistant at St.

John’s University. St John’s University is America’s leading

Catholic University (founded in 1870) Nike, Inc was founded in 1971 and is the

worldwide leader in athletic apparel.

Procedural History

Keady filed suit in the Southern District Court of New York. The District Court dismissed all counts brought

forth. The case was appealed by the plaintiff to the

United States Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit.

Key Terms

Defamation

Conspiracy

Breach of Contract

Key Facts

James Keady brought suit claiming he was forced to resign from his position in the Athletic Department at St. John’s University because he failed to wear Nike clothing, while he was employed with the university.

ISSUE

Should one be fired or forced to resign for not wearing a specific brand of clothing?

Plaintiffs Arguments

He does not want to wear the apparel because he did not agree with their labor practices.

Nike was “pressuring St John’s to discredit him and take other steps to stop him from speaking against Nike and force him to wear the clothing or resign.”

Defendants Arguments

The plaintiff agreed to perform his duties “diligently and cooperatively, for 20 hours a week…in a scholarly and efficient manner.”

The plaintiff can be terminated by certain university officials “at any time” if, in their judgment plaintiff “failed to perform any of the foregoing provisions of this agreement.”

Other Cases Used

Feinstein v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. “Liability does not exist in a vacuum; there must

be a showing of some damage ...“ Broome v. Biondi

Dismissing defamation claim where it did not identify with precision who at defendant company made the alleged statements, at what times or places, and to whom the statements were made

Holdings

District Court held that plaintiff failed to state claims under any federal civil rights statutes on which he relied or under state law for discrimination, defamation or breach of contract.

United States Court of Appeals Affirmed the decision of the District Court except its determination that supplemental jurisdiction was warranted. The District Court was instructed to dismiss plaintiff's state law claims without prejudice.

Rationale

A plaintiff must allege (i) a false and defamatory statement of fact, (ii) of or concerning the plaintiff, (iii) publication to a third party, and (iv) injury to the plaintiff as a result.

Rationale (continued)

Plaintiff alleges a series of defamatory statements without identifying the substance of those statements, by whom they were made, or to whom they were communicated.

In addition, plaintiff does not allege that any damages or other loss, including monetary loss, resulted from his resignation

Future Implications

Writing contracts that include an apparel clause.

When signing with an outfitter for exclusivity, what employees need to abide by this?

Recording phone calls to CYA.