A former University of Arizona athlete sued teammates and coaches for bullying, battery, and defamation. But the school tells a different tale.

University of Arizona Defamation Case: Athlete Alleges Assault and Slander

As Michael Grabowski tells it, his track-and-field teammates began their harassment campaign at training camp. He says he was the only person denied a bed.

Eventually, Grabowski’s father contacted associate head coach James Li. The older Grabowski supposedly pinpointed two ringleaders, to which Li protested: “You can’t single out the two top runners on the team.” Li, however, promised to keep an eye out and posited that Michael just didn’t “know the [team’s] culture” yet.

But according to the lawsuit, things escalated when coaches allegedly forced a sick Grabowski to compete. Afterward, he met with head coach Harvey who allegedly chastised the athlete before kicking him off the squad in the presence of other coaches. When he pushed for an explanation, Grabowski says Harvey pinned him to a chair, cussed, and called him a liar, which caused Grabowski to faint, prompting medical attention.

In his lawsuit, Grabowski argues Title IX violations, assault, and defamation. He names Harvey, the Arizona Board of Regents, and other students as defendants. As for damages, Grabowski wants $3 million in punitive damages, plus attorney fees.

University of Arizona Defamation Case: The Defense

The university’s story differs from Grabowski’s. For their parts, Harvey and Li contend that Grabowski wasn’t an innocent target, arguing that the runner joked inappropriately about rape and flung racist comments around. Grabowski denies the allegations.

The university concedes that it knew about a track team conflict, but the school says there’s “a distinct disparity between the allegations in the lawsuit and the concerns raised last fall.”

In a statement, UA asserts its belief that the coaches and staff “acted appropriately” and the school plans to “strongly contest any lawsuits based on unsubstantiated allegations.”

Other Athletes also came forward on behalf of the coach and school. A letter published in the student newspaper, the Daily Wildcat, praised Harvey for his “temper, rational and moral actions” and spoke of the “positive impact” he’s had on other students’ lives.

Proving Defamation in Arizona

Proving defamation in Arizona — and the rest of the United States for that matter — isn’t easy. We have the most defendant-friendly slander and libel laws in the English-speaking world.

To win, claimants must prove:

• That the defendant publicly made a false statement of fact;
• Which caused material harm; and
• Either knew the account was a lie or didn’t verify.

It will be interesting to see how this University of Arizona defamation lawsuit unfolds. In the meantime, click here to read about more Arizona defamation cases.

A woman in Arizona’s Southeast Valley once found herself in the middle of a defamation lawsuit. Her water utility company — Johnson Utilities— did the suing.

What Is The Root Of This Defamation of Character Arizona Lawsuit Start?

Emily Hughes, who lives in Johnson Ranch, woke up one day to a faucet full of urine-colored water. Yuck! Shocked at the appearance, Hughes made a video of her discolored H2O and posted it online. Then, a few weeks later, Hughes was served with a defamation lawsuit, courtesy of Johnson Utilities. The company was demanding a whopping $100,000.

What Does The Plaintiff Need To Prove In This Arizona Lawsuit?

We’ll have to see what Johnson Utilities has up its legal sleeve. To win, the company will need to prove that Hughes acted with reckless disregard for the truth. And perhaps more importantly, the plaintiff, Johnson, will have to prove that Hughes was lying about the yellow water. For as the saying goes, it’s not slander if it’s true.

Now, it’s possible that Hughes made false statements of fact in the video. If that’s the case, Johnson Utility may emerge victorious. If, however, the video is simply Hughes showing the yellow water streaming from her faucet, it will be interesting to see how the plaintiff goes about trying to prove the footage false.