Porrata v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n (38 F. Supp. 3d 549, 2014)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SMITH, District Judge.

Presently before the court is the motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed by the plaintiff, Omar Porrata (“Porrata”). As explained below, the court will deny the motion.

I.JURISDICTION

The court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

II.VENUE

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

III.PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 17, 2014, Porrata commenced this action against the defendant, Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, Inc. (“PIAA”), by filing a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County. See Notice of Removal (“Notice”), at Ex. A, Compl., Doc. No. 1-2. In the complaint, Porrata alleges that Palisades High School employed him as the head coach of its high school wrestling team. Compl. at ¶¶ 3-5. On January 30, 2014, the Palisades High School wrestling team was scheduled to wrestle against Bethlehem Catholic High School in the District XI, Class AA team tournament at Catasauqua High School. Id. at ¶ 25. Instead of wrestling Bethlehem Catholic High School, Porrata decided to forfeit all ten weight-classes for which Palisades High School had entered wrestlers. Id. at ¶26. Based on this conduct, the District XI Committee later held a hearing after which it determined that Porrata had engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct and imposed sanctions on Palisades High School and Porrata. Id. at ¶¶ 37-52. Although Porrata appealed from this decision to the PIAA Board of Appeal, the Board of Appeal generally affirmed the sanctions and expanded one of the sanctions to prohibit any PIAA school employing Porrata as a coach from competing in the 2014-2015 post-season. Id. at ¶¶ 56-65.

Based on, inter alia, the aforementioned allegations, Porrata asserts causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. at 10-12. Porrata also includes causes of action for defamation and for declaratory judgment. Id. at 12-13.

On the same date that Porrata filed the complaint, he also filed a petition for preliminary injunctive relief. The Honorable Paula A. Roscioli of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County entered a rule to show cause as to why the court should not grant the petition. Porrata v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Ass’n, No. C-48-CV-2014-3437, Rule to Show Cause, Doc. No. 1-4. Judge Roscioli set the rule returnable date for April 24, 2014. Id.

Just two days prior to the rule returnable date on the petition for preliminary injunctive relief, i.e. April 22, 2014, the PIAA removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441, and 1446. Notice at 1. The undersigned held a conference with counsel on April 24, 2014, after which the court entered an order scheduling the matter for an evidentiary hearing on Porrata’s request for a preliminary injunction. Doc. No. 4. The court also ordered the parties to provide memoranda of law in support of their respective positions. Id.

Porrata filed the instant motion for preliminary injunctive relief and a brief in support of the motion on April 25, 2014. Doc. Nos. 5, 6. The PIAA filed a brief in support of its opposition to the motion on April 29, 2014. The court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion on May 1, 2014. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Both parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on May 12, 2014.

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT

After carefully considering the evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing on May 1, 2014 and, after assigning such weight to the evidence as we deemed proper and disregarding the testimony that the court found to lack credibility, the pertinent facts are as follows:

A.The PIAA

1. The PIAA is a non-profit, membership organization consisting of approximately 1420 public and private schools. Tr. of Evidentiary Hrg. for Prelim. Inj. (“Inj. Tr.”) at 326, 327, Doc. No. 13; Pl.’s Ex. 2, 2013-2014 PIAA Const, and ByLaws at 2, PIAA Const, art. II, §§ 1, 2, art. Ill, § 1.

2. The PIAA oversees interscholastic athletic competitions between, its member schools. PL’s Ex. 2, 2013-2014 PIAA Const, and By-Laws at 4, PIAA Const, art. VII.

3. Approximately 350,000 student-athletes participate in PIAA-sanctioned sports in a given year. Inj. Tr. at 327.

4. The PIAA constantly stresses sportsmanship. Inj. Tr. at 60.

5. There are a number of schools in Pennsylvania that do not belong to the PIAA. Inj. Tr. at 327. Nonetheless, an “overwhelming majority” of the public high schools are members of the PIAA. Id. at 358.

6. The PIAA’s purpose is as follows:

A. Health.

To organize, develop, and direct an interscholastic athletic program which promotes, protects, and conserves the health and physical welfare of all participants.

B. Education.

To formulate and maintain policies that safeguards the educational values of interseholastic athletics and cultivates the high ideals of good sportsmanship.

C. Competition.

To promote uniformity of standards in all interscholastic athletic competition.

PL’s Ex. 2, 2013-2014 PIAA Const, and By-Laws at 1, PIAA Const, art. II, § 1; see Inj. Tr. at 327.

7. The PIAA seeks to “promote, protect, and serve the educational values of interscholastic athletics and promote the ideals of good sportsmanship.” Inj. Tr. at 327.

8. The PIAA is divided into districts to assist with organization, legislation, and administration. PL’s Ex. 2, 2013-2014 PIAA Const, and By-Laws at 2, PIAA Const, art. V, § 1.

9. Each PIAA district has a district committee, which maintains “general control within the District over all interscholastic athletic relations and Contests in which a PIAA member school participates, subject to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Board of Directors.” PL’s Ex. 2, 2013-2014 PIAA Const, and By-Laws at 6, PIAA Const, art. IX, § 3A.

10. The members of a particular district determine the makeup of each district committee. PL’s Ex. 2, 2013-2014 PIAA Const, and By-Laws at 5, PIAA Const, art. IX, § 1A.

11. At all times relevant to this litigation, Robert Hartman (“Hartman”) served as the chairman of the PIAA District XI Committee (the “Committee”). See, e.g., PL’s Ex. 1, Tr. of Feb. 16, 2014 Dist. XI Comm. Hrg. (“Comm. Hrg. Tr.”) (noting Hartman as chairman of the Committee).

12. The PIAA district committees have the power to “address alleged violations of the Constitution, By-Laws, Policies and Procedures, and Rules and Regulations of PIAA” and to “fix and enforce penalties, within the District, for violation[s] of the Constitution, and By-Laws, Policies and Procedures, and Rules and Regulations of PIAA, within the limits prescribed by the By-Laws.” PL’s Ex. 2, 2013-2014 PIAA Const, and By-Laws at 6, PIAA Const, art. IX, § 1G, H.

13. Generally, each district has one representative on the PIAA Board of Directors, which is the administrative and executive body of the PIAA with “general control over all interscholastic athletic relations and Contests in which a PIAA member school participates.” PL’s Ex. 2, 2013-2014 PIAA Const, and By-Laws at 3, PIAA Const, art. VI, §§ 1, 2, art.. VII, § 1A.

14. The PIAA Board of Directors has the power “[t]o investigate, request, receive and/or otherwise obtain information (written and/or oral), hear and decide appeals from decisions of ... District Committees.” PL’s Ex. 2 at 4, PIAA Const, art. VIII, § 1G; see PL’s Ex. 3, PIAA Policies and Procedures at 25, § II (stating that the PIAA Board of Directors and PIAA Board of Appeal has the power to “investigate, hear, and decide appeals from decisions of ... District Committees”).

15. The PIAA Board of Directors may “fix and enforce penalties for any violation of the Constitution, By-Laws, Policies and Procedures, and Rules and Regulations of PIAA and such other by-laws, policies, procedures, rules, and regulations as it may, from time to time, adopt.” PL’s Ex. 2, 2013-2014 PIAA Const, and By-Laws at 4, PIAA Const, art. VII, § II.

16. Dr. Robert A. Lombardi is the executive director of the PIAA. Inj. Tr. at 325-26.

17. Dr. Lombardi has served as the executive director for the past two years, and he has worked with the PIAA for the past 26 years. Inj. Tr. at 326.

18. As executive director, Dr. Lombardi is responsible for “carrying out policies and procedures of the board of directors, ... being the supervisory person of [the PIAA’s] interscholastic championship contests, registration, and training of sports officials and handling ... the PIAA headquarters [from] an operational standpoint.” Inj. Tr. at 326.

17. Dr. Lombardi also serves as the secretary for the Board of Directors. Inj. Tr. at 334.

20. The PIAA attempts to follow its Policies and Procedures “very closely.” Inj. Tr. at 342.

B. Porrata as Coach of the Palisades High School Wrestling Team

21. Porrata has worked as a teacher at Liberty High School (“Liberty”) in the Bethlehem Area School District for the past ten years. Inj. Tr. at 19-20, 21. During that time, he also served as an assistant wrestling coach at Liberty for four years and as the head wrestling coach for Palisades High School (“Palisades H.S.”) since 2008. Id. at 20, 21, 60.

22. Palisades H.S. participates as a PIAA member school in PIAA District XI. Inj. Tr. at 26.

23. Prior to Porrata’s arrival, Palisades H.S.’s wrestling team had been mired in an extensive losing streak and had gone through multiple coaches. Inj. Tr. at 21, 160. Also, out of 14 possible weight classes, Palisades H.S. had only five wrestlers. Id. at 23.

24. To change the culture of the wrestling program, Porrata began working on building the program by assisting the youth and junior high wrestling programs, which had kids that would eventually attend Palisades H.S. Inj. Tr. at 23, 26, 161. In this regard, Porrata assisted with youth and junior high wrestling practices at night after the conclusion of high school practices. Id. at 24-25, 26. He also would attend youth and junior high tournaments and matches on weekends. Id. at 25, 26.

25. Porrata’s commitment to the wrestling program was a year-long endeavor. Inj. Tr. at 24.

26. Porrata’s efforts were very successful, as the Palisades H.S. wrestling team went from finishing in the bottom three in District XI to finishing in the top three two years ago. Inj. Tr. at 23.

27. Porrata acknowledges that teaching sportsmanship is an important part of a coach’s job. Inj. Tr. at 60.

28. Porrata attended the mandatory rules interpretation committee meeting for coaches, which included a presentation about sportsmanship. Inj. Tr. at 60-61.

29. In October 2013, Porrata signed a “PALISADES SCHOOL DISTRICT EXTRA DUTY ACTIVITIES CONTRACT” (the “Agreement”). Inj. Tr. at 26, 27, 28; PL’s Ex. 10. The Agreement states in pertinent part as follows:

The Palisades School District and Omar Porrata hereby enter into the following agreement: Employee agrees to coach Wrestling Head Coach [sic] according to ... the requirements outlined in the section titled “Extra Duty/Extra Pay Program” of the Agreement Between The Palisades School Board and the Palisades Education Association.

This contract shall terminate in the event that the employee is relieved of outlined responsibilities because of violation^) of School District Policy(ies) or for cause as set forth by Statute in the School Laws of Pennsylvania.

[ ] $6954

Pl.’s Ex. 10. As indicated by the Agreement, Palisades paid Porrata $6,954.00 in salary for the 2013-2014 season. Id.; Inj. Tr. at 28,107,108.

C. The January 30, 2014 Wrestling Match Against Bethlehem Catholic and the Events Leading up to the District XI Committee Hearing

30. For the 2013-2014 wrestling season, Palisades H.S. was able to field only ten or eleven wrestlers for the fourteen weight classes. Inj. Tr. at 31.

31. On January 30, 2014, the Palisades H.S. wrestling team participated in the District XI Wrestling Class 2A team tournament at Catasauqua High School. See Inj. Tr. at 31; PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 9.

32. On January 30, 2014, Palisades H.S. participated in two matches, the first against Jim Thorpe High School (“Jim Thorpe”) and the second against Bethlehem Catholic High School (“Bethlehem Catholic”). PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 31.

33. At approximately 8:37 a.m. on January 30, 2014, Porrata sent a text message to another team’s wrestling coach indicating that “[m]y team’s hurting, stomach virus all around.” Inj. Tr. at 127-28; PL’s Ex. 20.

34. Palisades H.S. won the first match against Jim Thorpe. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 10, 51; Def.’s Ex. 2.

35. Palisades H.S. wrestlers weighed-in for ten of the fourteen weight classes against Jim Thorpe. Def. Ex. 2; PL’s Ex. I, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 42.

36. One of the winning Palisades H.S. wrestlers won his match against Jim Thorpe by forfeit after Porrata had him weigh in to get a forfeit even though he could not actually wrestle because of an injury to his ear. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 36-37.

37. After Palisades H.S. won against Jim Thorpe, they were scheduled to wrestle Bethlehem Catholic at approximately 7:00 p.m. that evening. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 57.

38. Porrata had initially planned on using his aforementioned ineligible wrestler to obtain a forfeit at the 195-pound weight class because Bethlehem Catholic did not have a wrestler at this weight class. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 36-37, 47.

39. Palisades H.S. sent wrestling captains to the pre-match coin toss. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 61.

40. Despite participating in the coin toss, at Porrata’s direction Palisades H.S. forfeited all fourteen weight classes in the match against Bethlehem Catholic. Inj. Tr. at 31.

41. Some, but not all, of the Palisades H.S. wrestlers were ill or injured at the time of the Bethlehem Catholic match. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 46.

42. After each individual wrestler went out to the table to wrestle, Porrata would tell the referee that the team was going to forfeit that particular bout. Inj. Tr. at 68.

43. Porrata did not tell the opposing coach, the meet official, or the referee of his plan to forfeit each match. Inj. Tr. at 65-66, 68, 69, 70.

44. Porrata did not consider contacting any Palisades H.S. officials about the forfeit. Inj. Tr. at 130.

45. No Palisades H.S. official or administrator was present for the match against Bethlehem Catholic. Inj. Tr. at 81, 235, 283.

46. The final score of the match between Palisades H.S. and Bethlehem Catholic was 84-0 in favor of Bethlehem Catholic. Def.’sEx. 2.

47. Most of the parents of the Palisades H.S. wrestlers stood and clapped following the forfeiture. Inj. Tr. at 202, 203.

48. Although some of the Palisades H.S. wrestlers were injured or ill at the time of the Bethlehem Catholic match, Porrata’s statement that he forfeited the match in the manner that he did because his team was injured or ill lacks credibility.

49. Porrata does not believe he was acting in an unsportsmanlike-fashion when he did not tell the Bethlehem Catholic coach of his plan to forfeit. Inj. Tr. at 65, 66.

50. After the forfeiture, Porrata did not discuss what he had done with the press because he was angry at the reporter covering the tournament. Inj. Tr. at 70, 112; PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 54-55.

51. Larry Wasser (“Wasser”) confronted Bethlehem Catholic’s coach after the match. Inj. Tr. at 206.

52. Wasser felt that Bethlehem Catholic had disrespected the Palisades H.S. team when certain wrestlers were out on the mat during warm-ups even though they did not weigh-in. Inj. Tr. at 199.

53. Wasser also thought that the Bethlehem Catholic coach was disrespectful when he did not get into line to shake hands after the match. Inj. Tr. at 206.

54. Richard Heffernan (“Heffernan”) has served as the principal of Palisades H.S. for the past eleven years. Inj. Tr. at 234.

55. Heffernan has an extensive background in athletics, which includes his participation as a college football player at Fordham University and his subsequent experience coaching football at the collegiate and high school levels. Inj. Tr. at 234-35. In addition, he has served on the Colonial League executive board and served one term as the District XI Committee chairperson from 2008 through 2010. Id. at 235.

56. On the night of January 30, 2014, Heffernan was on his way to Vermont with his wife and child for an extended weekend. Inj. Tr. at 235. During this trip, Heffernan received notice that Palisades H.S. had forfeited the match against Bethlehem Catholic. Id. at 235-36.

57. Immediately after receiving notice of the forfeit, Heffernan contacted Dr. Bridget O’Connell, superintendent of the Palisades School District, to inform her of what happened during the match. Inj. Tr. at 236.

58. Based on his conversation with Dr. O’Connell, Heffernan called Porrata to inquire about the match with Bethlehem Catholic. Inj. Tr. at 71, 236.

59. During Heffernan’s conversation with Porrata, Porrata informed Heffernan that he had forfeited all matches against Bethlehem Catholic. Inj. Tr. at 32, 71, 234, 236.

60. When Heffernan asked Porrata why he forfeited the matches, Porrata told him he did that because Bethlehem Catholic weighed-in their junior varsity wrestlers and it was disrespecting the Palisades wrestlers. Inj. Tr. at 236. In addition, Porrata noted that the Bethlehem Catholic wrestlers who were in street clothes were goofing around on the mat prior to the meet, and he was not going to allow the Palisades H.S. wrestlers to be treated like that. Id.

61. During this conversation with Heffernan, Porrata did not state that he forfeited the match because the team was unable to physically perform because of injury or illness. Inj. Tr. at 236-37.

62. Porrata’s then-fiancé (and now-wife), Megan Brewington Porrata, overheard Porrata’s side of the telephone conversation with Heffernan. Inj. Tr. at 215-16.

63. Heffernan had never heard of. a team forfeiting a match in a manner similar to the forfeiture against Bethlehem Catholic. Inj. Tr. at 237.

64. After speaking to Porrata, Heffernan contacted Dr. O’Connell and told her about his conversation with Porrata. Inj. Tr. at 237. Dr. O’Connell then told Heffernan that he should call Porrata and tell him that he is suspended pending a full investigation. Id.

65. Heffernan then called Porrata and indefinitely suspended Porrata from his duties as wrestling coach pending a full investigation. Inj. Tr. at 71, 237.

66. Heffernan also called Hartman to apologize for the conduct of the Palisades H.S. wrestling team and coach and to inform him that the school was immediately suspending Porrata pending a full investigation. Inj. Tr. at 32, 238.

67. Rebecca George (“George”) has served as the athletic director of the Palisades School District for the past eleven years. Inj. Tr. at 281.

68. During the night after the forfeit, Porrata sent a text message to George, stating: “Sorry for letting you down, I wish you could see it the way I saw it, I will not have my kids treated the way they were tonight, they worked too hard ... thanks for the opportunity.” Def.’s Ex. 1; Inj. Tr. at 79, 80,113,114, 282.

69. Because of Palisades H.S.’s forfeiture against Bethlehem Catholic, the Committee scheduled a hearing. Pl.’s Ex. 11.

70. When a district committee schedules a hearing, the 2013-2014 PIAA Policies and Procedures provide in pertinent part as follows:

In all cases where a hearing is to be held, the ... District Committee ... shall send a letter to ... (1) the Principal of the schools involved, ... (3) any adult who may be subject to sanction as a result of findings by the ... District Committee, advising them of the following:

1. The date, time, and place of the hearing.

2. How the case arose (by request of the student’s school, complaint of another school, or by the Regional Panel or District Committee’s receipt of information).

3. The issue(s) involved, citing the applicable provision(s) of the PIAA Constitution, By-Laws, Policies and Procedures, and/or Rules and Regulations. This should be sufficiently specific to inform the parties of the issues, but sufficiently general to cover collateral issues that may arise' (for example, a case arising under the Transfer Rule may be identified simply as involving ARTICLE VI, TRANSFERS, RESIDENCE, AND RECRUITING, of the PIAA By-Laws, but if the precise section or sections are known, they could be identified also).

4. The fact that the school and any individuals involved, including students, are entitled to bring with them to the hearing any persons whom they desire to attend, to submit any written material which they desire, and to be represented by counsel. Where any party intends to submit written material, the Regional Panel or District Committee may require that an appropriate number of copies be provided. If written material has been received by the Regional Panel or District Committee from others, copies shall be provided to the member school.

5. Any local ground rules for hearings (which may not conflict with these Standards).

6. That, if the Principal has any questions, that Principal is to contact an identified person (Regional Panel Chairman, District Chairman, District Executive, etc.).

Pl.’s Ex. 3, PIAA Policies and Procedures at 17-18.

71.Hartman authored a letter dated January 31, 2014, to Heffernan. Inj. Tr. at 32, 36; Pl.’s Ex. 11. This letter states in pertinent part as follows:

Dear Mr. Heffernan:

As a result of the actions of Head Coach Omar Porrata, the District XI Executive Committee is invoking the sanctions, effective immediately, as defined [sic] Article XIII, Penalties, Section 9, Violations by an Individual, Subsection A, Rectifying Actions by a School. These items can be found on page 29 of the PIAA By-laws.

As Article XIII reads, PIAA District XI will suspend Palisades High School from further PIAA Post-season competition in the sport of wrestling if Head Coach Omar Porrata is not suspended. Furthermore, we are requesting that Mr. Porrata not be present at the District XI Dual Championship on Saturday, February 1, 2014 at Freedom High School. We would like to maintain the focus of the event on the student-athletes who are participating.

Additionally, PIAA District XI is requesting a hearing of Palisades High School and Omar Porrata to take place at Tamaqua High School on Sunday, February 16, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. The 'PIAA District XI Committee will hear evidence in this matter.

Please confirm that you have read and understand the conditions of this letter. We hope to have a response by 3:00 p.m., Friday, January 31, 2014.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Robert Hartman, PIAA District XI Chairman at your earliest convenience.

Pl.’s Ex. 11.

72. Hartman’s January 31, 2014 letter did not cite the provisions, if any, of the PIAA Constitution, By-Laws, Rules and Regulations, or Policies and Procedures that Porrata allegedly violated. Pl.’s Ex. 11.

73. At approximately 4:00 p.m., on January 31, 2014, George, even though she was still on maternity leave, called Porrata and informed him that he needed to contact Dr. O’Connell. Inj. Tr. at 81, 283. She also asked him to call her back after he spoke to Dr. O’Connell. Id. at 283, 284.

74. Dr. O’Connell read Hartman’s letter to Porrata during a phone conversation on January 31, 2014. Inj. Tr. at 33, 34, 62-63, 85.

75. The PIAA, through the Committee, did not mail a copy of Hartman’s letter directly to Porrata, and, even though Dr. O’Connell read the letter to him on January 31, 2014, he did not see the letter until a meeting with Heffernan on February 6, 2014. Inj. Tr. at 32, 33-34, 86.

76. The fact that the PÍAA did not directly send Porrata the January 31, 2014 letter did not affect Porrata’s ability to defend himself at the District XI Committee hearing. Inj. Tr. at 86-87.

77. Porrata understood that the hearing would occur on February 16, 2014. Inj. Tr. at 87.

78. After speaking to Dr. O’Connell, Porrata had another conversation with George on January 31, 2014. Inj. Tr. at 81.

79. During this conversation, Porrata and George discussed what happened on January 30, 2014. Inj. Tr. at 283-84.

80. Porrata told George that Bethlehem Catholic was disrespectful to him, and he would do whatever he could to not have the kids treated the way they were that evening. Inj. Tr. at 284, 294-95. “

81. During George’s conversation with Porrata, he did not mention anything about illness or injury being the reason for the forfeiture. Inj. Tr. at 284, 295.

82. Porrata provided George with detailed information about what happened that night, and he told her that Wasser approached hi m, looked him in the eyes, and told him that his son would not wrestle against Bethlehem Catholic. Inj. Tr. at 193,197, 295.

83. Once Wasser told him that, Porrata decided he was not going to wrestle against Bethlehem Catholic. Inj. Tr. at 295.

84. Both Hartman and Dr. Lombardi provided numerous statements to the press in the days immediately following Palisades H.S.’s match with Bethlehem Catholic. Pl.’s Exs. 4-9; Inj. Tr. at 329.

85. On January 31, 2014, Ryan Holmes (“Holmes”) of The Express Times authored an article titled, “District 11 considers sanctions over Palisades wrestling forfeiting quarterfinal bouts against Bethlehem Catholic.” Pl.’s Ex. 4; Inj. Tr. at 11. In this article, Hartman stated “ We heard some rumors about this happening a few years back,’ ” which Holmes stated was in reference to “teams forfeiting to Bethlehem Catholic for nonsanctioned reasons.” Pl.’s Ex. 4; Inj. Tr. at 11. Hartman also stated as follows:

“We addressed it with the coaches and they knew that there would be serious consequences if it did happen[.] ... It’s too quick to make any decisions on what happened last night and we can’t tell Palisades what to do, but we have requested a hearing to discuss it. Omar is not our employee. It’s up to the school to handle it.”

“Whether people support his decision or not and whether you like Beca or not, it’s a black mark for the sport of wrestling.”

Pl.’s Ex. 4.

86. On January 31, 2014, Holmes authored an article titled, “High school wrestling name-calling ensues after Palisades’ ‘statement’ loss to Bethlehem Catholic.” PL’s Ex. 5; Inj. Tr. at 12. In this article, Hartman stated:

“Athletics is how we learn to fight through things[.] ... Speaking as the athletic director of Whitehall, that’s what we strive for here; to teach our kids and help them grow. Our coaches do a great job of it here. It’s not an indictment of Palisades at all, but I think it’s fair to say that we wouldn’t have those coaches here. Wins and losses are important but learning is the key. In a roundabout way that should say how I feel about what he did.”

PL’s Ex. 5; Inj. Tr. at 12-13.

87. On January 31, 2014, Holmes authored an article titled, “Palisades High School wrestling team to continue in District 11 Class AA team championships.” PL’s Ex. 6; Inj. Tr. at 13. In this article, Hartman stated: “We are not interested in punishing kids for actions of adults[.] ... Palisades school district is (Porrata’s) employer. He’s not our employee and it’s too early to make any decisions.” PL’s Ex. 6; Inj. Tr. at 13.

88. On January 31, 2014, Michael Blouse (“Blouse”) authored an article for The Morning Call titled, “Fourteen forfeits: Pirates abandon ship rather than wrestle Bethlehem Catholic.” PL’s Ex. 7; Inj. Tr. at 13. In this article, Hartman stated: “This absolutely damages the integrity of the sport[.] ... We need to discuss this as a committee and there may be action taken. This goes against all the ideals and principles of the PIAA.” PL’s Ex. 7; Inj. Tr. at 13.

89. On January 31, 2014, Blouse and Mark Wogenrich authored an article for The Morning Call titled, “Palisades faces wrestling hearing, can continue in D-ll tourney.” PL’s Ex. 8; Inj. Tr. at 14. In this article, Dr. Lombardi stated that Porrata’s decision was “unprecedented.” PL’s Ex. 8; Inj. Tr. at 14. Dr. Lombardi also stated that

“It’s an invitational tournamentf.] ... Teams enter the tournament with the understanding that they’re going to participate. By not participating, [Palisades] violated the intent of the tournament. District 11 is scheduling a hearing for full review with the school’s involvement. I believe the district is handling this appropriately.”

PL’s Ex. 8; Inj. Tr. at 14-15. The authors quoted Hartman as saying, “ ‘This stinks for the sport[.] It takes away from the event. I don’t think it’s something that wrestling is built on.’ ” PL’s Ex. 8; Inj. Tr. at 14. The authors also stated that “Lombardi and Hartman said Bethlehem Catholic’s classification should not be considered an explanation for Porrata’s decision to forfeit.” PL’s Ex. 8; Inj. Tr. at 15-17. Dr. Lombardi further stated: “That has no bearing on going out and wrestling an opponent you’re scheduled to wrestle[.] ... If there are other issues separate from the process, teams can address them. So that’s not germane here.” PL’s Ex. 8; Inj. Tr. at 17.

90. Dr. Lombardi informed thé press that this was an unprecedented event because the PIAA had never had a team forfeit all of its bouts and “walk off a court.” Inj. Tr. at 329.

91. On February 1, 2014, Blouse authored an article titled, “District 11 penalizes Palisades wrestling coach over forfeit.” PL’s Ex. 9; Inj. Tr. at 17-18. In this article, Blouse quoted Dr. Lombardi as saying that Porrata’s decision “violated the intent of the tournament.” PL’s Ex. 9; Inj. Tr. at 18. In addition, the article quoted Hartman as saying “Article 13, Section 9 of the PIAA by-laws deals with possible penalties when provisions are put in place[.] This penalty was part of those provisions.” PL’s Ex. 9.

92. Dr. Lombardi indicated that Porrata’s decision “violated the intent of the tournament” because it was an invitational tournament with an understanding that the teams that go into it will participate. Inj. Tr. at 340-41.

93. Since Palisades H.S. did not participate in the match with Bethlehem Catholic, Dr. Lombardi believes that Porrata violated the intent of the tournament to participate in the tournament with his team. Inj. Tr. at 341.

94. On February 1, 2014, Palisades H.S., under the direction of assistant coach Ricky Bass, wrestled against Catasauqua High School. Inj. Tr. at 204-05; PL’s Ex. I, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 10, 37; Def.’s Ex. 2.

95. Porrata believes that all ten Palisades H.S. wrestlers participated in the match against Catasauqua High School. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 37.

96. On February 2, 2014, Porrata and George exchanged text messages during which Porrata asked George if he could explain his side of the story to the newspapers. Inj. Tr. at 117, 296; PL’s Ex. 19.

97. George advised him that he should not talk to the media. Inj. Tr. at 117; PL’s Ex. 19.

98. George also told Porrata that “I need you to know that I do not support what you did even though I understand whyu did it, but I DO support you as our coach, and will do what I can to help protect the program.” Inj. Tr. at 117-18, 296-97; PL’s Ex. 19.

99. Despite disapproving of what Porrata did, George supported him as the coach because he had done so much for the Palisades H.S. wrestling program. Inj. Tr. at 310.

100. George did not believe that the media was stating that Porrata forfeited because Bethlehem Catholic had disrespected him or Palisades H.S.; instead, she felt that the media was portraying that he was trying to make a statement against Bethlehem Catholic. Inj. Tr. at 297.

101. When Porrata indicated to George in his text message that he wanted to tell the media “his part” of the story, George believed that Porrata wanted to tell the media that Bethlehem Catholic had disrespected the Palisades H.S. student-athletes. Inj. Tr. at 297-98.

102. Hartman authored a second letter, dated February 4, 2014, to Heffernan, in which he stated, inter alia, that (1) the hearing was scheduled for February 16, 2014, at 11:00 a.m. at the Tamaqua Area Middle School, (2) the hearing was related to the “actions of Palisades High School and its wrestling coach, Omar Porrata,” (3) the hearing would “proceed pursuant to the ‘Procedural Standards for Regional Panels and District Committees’ as set forth on pages 15 to 24 of the Policies and Procedures Section of the 2013-14 PIAA Handbook, which is available on the PIAA Web site at www.piaa.org[,]” (4) if Heffernan needed to reschedule the hearing or if he had any questions, he should immediately contact Hartman, and (5) Palisades and Porrata were entitled to “have present at the hearing any persons whom they desire, to pretty [sic] any written material that they desire, and to be represented by counsel.” Pl.’s Ex. 12.

103. Although Hartman and the PIAA did not provide Porrata with a copy of the February 4, 2014 letter, Heffernan provided Porrata with a copy of the letter during a meeting on February 6, 2014. Inj. Tr. at 34-36.

104. Hartman’s February 4, 2014 letter did not cite the provisions, if any, of the PIAA Constitution, By-Laws, Rules and Regulations, or Policies and Procedures that Porrata allegedly violated with, his conduct on January 30, 2014. Inj. Tr. at 344-45.

105. Hartman’s February 4, 2014 letter did not reference the potential penalties that the Committee could impose. Pl.’s Ex. 12.

106. Hartman’s February 4, 2014 letter mistakenly described the February 16, 2014 hearing as an “appeal” hearing. Pl.’s Ex. 12.

107. On February 6, 2014, Porrata had a meeting with Heffernan and Don Hericle (“Hericle”). Inj. Tr. at 246, 248.

108. During this meeting, Porrata told Heffernan that the Palisades H.S. wrestlers were sick or injured and he forfeited the match against Bethlehem Catholic on January 30, 2014 because of his wrestlers’ illnesses and injuries. Inj. Tr. at 246.

109. Until this February 6, 2014 meeting, Porrata had not told Heffernan that he forfeited the match against Bethlehem Catholic because the Palisades H.S. wrestlers were ill or injured. Inj. Tr. at 246.

110. Porrata’s reference to injury or illness being the main reason for the forfeit was “a total left turn” from his prior conversations with Heffernan. Inj. Tr. at 249.

111. Porrata also informed Heffernan that (1) Palisades PI.S.’s wrestlers were unhappy that Bethlehem Catholic weighed-in junior varsity wrestlers, (2) Palisades H.S. was pretty beat up with no backups, (3) he told some of the wrestlers that they were going to rest that night, (4) he decided that six additional wrestlers were not going to wrestle despite those wrestlers having wrestled earlier that day, (5) he did not know if the additional wrestlers got hurt during the prior wrestling match, (6) Bethlehem Catholic was warming-up wrestlers who were not actually wrestling, which he felt was demeaning and angered him, (7) certain parents, including Mr. Marsh, Wasser, and Mr. Gretzinger, came up to him to let him know that they saw the other wrestlers warming-up and they did not want their kids wrestling junior varsity kids, and (8) the coach of Bethlehem Catholic did not shake his hand following the match. Inj. Tr. at 247-48.

112. Porrata further indicated that this became a bigger issue than he thought it would and if a similar situation happened in the future, he would contact George or Hericle. Inj. Tr. at 248.

113. During this meeting, Heffernan and Hericle also briefly discussed the Committee hearing with Porrata. Inj. Tr. at 254. They explained to him that it was a “very serious situation” because of the unsportsmanlike conduct and the Committee could potentially impose sanctions. Id. at 254-55. When they attempted to question Porrata, he became “a little agitated,” so they stopped questioning him. Id. at 255.

114. Heffernan told Porrata that he had only a limited period of time to present—only 45 minutes—so he would want to choose his witnesses wisely. Inj. Tr. at 255.

115. Heffernan did not tell Porrata that he could bring only one witness to the hearing. Inj. Tr. at 255.

116. Prior to the Committee hearing, Heffernan and Dr. O’Connell had scheduled a meeting with Porrata’s attorney, Darrell Martoccio (“Martoccio”), for February 11, 2014. Inj. Tr. at 255; see also PL’s Ex. 1 (showing Martoccio as Porrata’s attorney).

117. During this meeting, Heffernan and Dr. O’Connell were planning on answering any questions Martoccio had, and they were also going to discuss the Committee hearing. Inj. Tr. at 255-56.

118. This meeting never occurred because Martoccio canceled the meeting. Inj. Tr. at 256.

119. Although it is unclear when, at some point prior to the Committee hearing on February 16, 2014, Porrata requested and George provided him with a copy of the PIAA Policies and Procedures pertaining to the hearing. Inj. Tr. at 89.

120. Porrata claims he did not review the PIAA Constitution or By-Laws before the Committee hearing occurred. Inj. Tr. at 63-64.

121. Prior to the Committee hearing, Porrata conversed with one of his wrestler’s parents, Eric Gretzinger (“Gretzinger”). Through this conversation, Gretzinger knew that the hearing was focused on the events of January 30, 2014. Inj. Tr. at 169.

122. Porrata and Gretzinger discussed why Porrata was getting sanctioned, and Porrata expressed his fear that the Committee would impose additional sanctions. Inj. Tr. at 170.

123. On February 12, 2014, Heffernan and Karl Scheibenhofer (“Seheibenhofer”), the assistant principal at Palisades H.S., met with Porrata. Inj. Tr. at 72, 244.

124. During this meeting, Heffernan informed Porrata that Palisades H.S. was suspending him for the remainder of the season, which included the District XI wrestling tournament, regionals, and states. Inj. Tr. at 72, 244-45.

125. Palisades H.S. permitted Porrata to continue to coach the wrestlers for practice because not having him coach practice would have had a detrimental effect on the athletes insofar as they were at the end of the season. Inj. Tr. at 245.

126. Heffernan explained that Palisades H.S. suspended Porrata because of his dishonesty, and the school wanted to “take a strong stance to show District XI that we were acting and putting sanctions upon our coach so that our student athletes would remain eligible to compete through the remainder of this season and beyond.” Inj. Tr. at 245.

127. Regarding the dishonesty, Heffernan noted that Porrata did not communicate anything about the athletes being sick or injured until nearly a week after the event took place. Inj. Tr. at 246.

128. Heffernan understood that the Committee was meeting to “determine whether or not the actions of our coach and our wrestling team were unsportsmanlike” on January 30, 2014. Inj. Tr. at 257.

129. Porrata understood that what transpired with the forfeiture on January 30, 2014 was the subject of the hearing. Inj. Tr. at 87.

D. The District XI Committee Hearing on February 16, 2014

130. On February' 16, 2014, the Committee held a hearing at Tamaqua Area Middle School. Pl.’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 1.

131. Regarding the procedure of the hearing, the PIAA’s Policies and Procedures provide that, inter alia:

G. Consistent with the maihtenance of an orderly and informative hearing, the manner of presentation of a school’s case shall be as chosen by the Principal or the Principal’s designee.

1. While the manner of presentation may involve formal trial-type proceedings in which witnesses are called and asked questions, to the more informal and common situation where witnesses are simply given the opportunity to present their evidence is usually more effective.

2. Reasonable cross-examination of witnesses is permitted. Cross-examination may be conducted by one representative of any party, such as a school’s principal, or the school’s counsel, and by a student or the student’s counsel or parent.

3. Any person in attendance other than representatives of the Regional Panel or District Committee hearing the matter, is subject to questioning by a school, party, member of the Regional Panel or District Committee, counsel for the Regional Panel or District Committee, or other person so authorized by the chair.

4. Counsel cannot reasonably expect formal rulings on legal objections in the context of the hearing. However, if a Principal or counsel interposes an evidentiary objection, those having to do with relevance of the testimony and repetitiveness of the testimony may be sustained. Other objections (most often, hearsay) may be ruled on by the presiding officer, but may also be noted and considered during deliberations. The presiding officer also has the authority to control issues of relevance and repetitiveness even in the absence of any objection.

5.Approach to hearsay generally: Hearsay, as a general matter, is testimony, affidavits, statements, and/or other documents which relay what another person, not present to be cross-examined at the hearing, previously said about something that is now relevant to the proceeding. Because other parties and the decision makers do not have an opportunity to question the person making the statement(s), the evidence should not be relied upon unless there are strong indicia that the information is reliable. Unsubstantiated rumors in particular are unreliable. There are several situations in which hearsay can be used or relied upon by the decision makers:

a. If the alleged speaker is present for the hearing and can be questioned about it, the hearsay may be admitted. Also, if the adverse party admits to the accuracy of the statement, it can be admitted as well.

b. The hearsay may be used, even if not relied on in the decision, to question other witnesses.

c. School, business, medical, and governmental records, if prepared in the normal course of the entity’s operations, can be admitted and relied upon.

d. Documents that have indicia of reliability. ...

e. The hearsay may be used to explain why someone did something.

f. The hearsay is not being offered for its truth.

G. Statements of a party whose interest is at issue.

PL’s Ex. 3, PIAA Policies and Procedures at 21-22.

132. As to the length of the hearing, the PIAA’s Policies and Procedures state that “[presentations at the hearing should be limited to no more than forty-five (45) minutes per party, including questions to adverse witnesses.... Absent showing of exceptionally good cause, a party will not be permitted an extension of more than fifteen (15) minutes.” Pl.’s Ex. 3, PIAA Policies and Procedures at 22.

133.. Regarding deliberations following the hearing, the PIAA’s Policies and Procedures provide in pertinent part as follows:

C. The Regional Panel or District Committee shall base its decision only on the evidence, written and oral, presented to it. Uncorroborated information in newspaper articles and anonymous correspondence is not considered evidence (although it may serve as a basis for questions during the hearing).

E. Members of the Regional Panel or District Committee who are employed by the school district (not just the individual school) involved, and any other members who have a conflict of interest, shall not be present during deliberations nor vote on the matter. This provision, as it applies to the school district, is not applicable to Districts VIII and XII.

PL’s Ex. 3, PIAA Policies and Procedures at 23-24.

134.Regarding notification of a district committee decision, the Policies and Procedures state that “[t]he Principal of the school(s) involved, ... and all adults who were subject to sanction at the hearing shall be notified of the decision by letter (the “Decision Letter”). Where it is local practice to notify the Principal of the decision by telephone, that Principal shall be informed that the decision will be confirmed by letter.” PL’s Ex. 3, PIAA Policies and Procedures at 24. Also, “[t]he Decision Letter shall identify the date of the hearing or other consideration and the rule(s) under which the decision was made, shall give a brief description of the reason^) for the decision, and shall advise the recipients of appeal rights.” Id. Further “[a] copy of the Decision Letter shall be provided to any counsel involved, and to any other parties.” Id.

135. 18 members of the Committee were present for the hearing on February 16, 2014. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 1-3.

136. Heffernan and George were present for the hearing on behalf of Palisades H.S. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 4.

137. Porrata was present and he had Martoceio and Gretzinger with him. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 4; Inj. Tr. at 54-55, 87.

138. Although Martoceio is an attorney, he was working as a teacher at Council Rock South High School at the time of the hearing. Inj. Tr. at 52.

139. Porrata did not pay Martoceio for his services. Inj. Tr. at 52.

140. Shortly after the introduction of the participants at the hearing, Hartman, who was presiding over the hearing, announced that the Committee convened the hearing

in regards to the allegations of misconduct on the part of Palisades head wrestling coach, Omar Porrata[,] and mandatory penalties imposed upon Palisades High School for the conduct of Mr. Porrata alleged to have occurred on Thursday, January 30, 2014, at Catasauqua High School during the District 11 Wrestling Duals Championship.

PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 4.

141. Hartman also described the primary issues of the hearing as (1) whether Palisades or Porrata “violated any provisions of the PIAA Constitution and Bylaws by intentionally forfeiting 14 bouts in a District Championship tournament match,” and (2) if so, the appropriate penalties for the violation. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 4-5.

142. Hartman indicated that the hearing would proceed pursuant to the PIAA Procedural Standards for District Committees, and he allowed Palisades and Porrata 45 minutes to present any evidence in support of their positions. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 6.

143. In his introduction, Hartman did not identify (1) the provisions of the PIAA Constitution, By-Laws, Policies and Procedure, or Rules and Regulations that the Committee charged Porrata with violating, or (2) the potential sanctions that the Committee could impose for any violations. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm; Hrg. Tr. at 4-5.

144. On behalf of Palisades H.S., Heffernan informed the Committee that Palisades H.S. “will not speak on behalf of Mr. Porrata[, and] Mr. Porrata and his legal counsel do[] not speak on behalf of the district.” PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 7.

145. Heffernan then read a written statement into the record. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 7-12.

146. In this statement, Heffernan indicated in pertinent part, as follows:

On Thursday, January 30th, during the District XI Class 2A team tournament quarterfinal-round, the Palisades wrestling team, under the direction of Omar Porrata, forfeited all weight classes without the knowledge or consent of the athletic director or other Palisades Administrators.

As previously noted, the district would support the coach in forfeiting an individual weight class if the student-athlete who earned the spot was injured, ill, academically ineligible or on behavioral suspension.

However, based on the Palisades wrestling team’s first round victory over Jim Thorpe and the fielding of a team within 48 hours against Catasauqua, full team injury, illness, academic ineligibility or behavioral suspension cannot justify the wrestling team’s failure to compete.

Through observation, conversation, and parent and student feedback, we believe Mr. Porrata is a skilled technical coach, passionate about the sport of wrestling and cares about the wrestling program and its athletes in the Palisades School District.

However, in that moment of decision making in which he led his wrestlers to forfeit all weight classes, Mr. Porrata forced student-athletes to break with the philosophy of the Palisades Athletic Handbook and the Athlete’s Pledge which notes:

Any failure to live up to the Palisades School Policies, Palisades Athletic Policies, or the rules and regulations set forth by the PIAA will result in an appropriate consequence deemed necessary.

PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 9-10.

147.Heffernan went on to state that the Palisades School District was concerned with minimizing the sanctions against its student-athletes. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 10. As such, Palisades H.S. suspended Porrata in the consolation match against Catasauqua on February 1, 2014, and it suspended him from the bench for all remaining PIAA wrestling competítions, including the state competition. Id. at 11. Palisades H.S. did allow Porrata to continue to coach students in practice because the school felt that removing him would have significantly affected the athletes’ performance. Id.

148. In addition to suspending Porrata, Heffernan informed the Committee that Palisades was self-imposing sanctions consisting of (1) reimbursing District XI for approximately $250 that it had to reimburse to fans who paid to see Palisades H.S. wrestle Bethlehem Catholic but were unable to do so because of the forfeit, (2) assigning an on-site administrator to be present for all post-season games and tournaments, and (3) working with the Committee to reach a resolution that would not exclude Palisades H.S. student-athletes from participation in the PIAA. Pl.’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 11-12.

149. After Heffernan completed reading his statement to the Committee, Porrata presented his side of the case. Pl.’s Ex. I, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 12.

150. Martoccio began by presenting a lengthy oral statement on Porrata’s behalf. Pl.’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 12-23.

151. During this statement, Martoccio explained' that Porrata did not attempt to take a stand against Bethlehem Catholic. Pl.’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 13. Instead, he was attempting to protect his wrestlers because they were having assorted health issues and had not performed well in the prior match. Id. at 13, 17-18.

152. Martoccio referenced that the Committee was accusing Porrata of “flagrant misconduct.” PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 13.

153. Martoccio also stated that Porrata essentially made two mistakes: First, he did not withdraw the entire team from the tournament when his team started to show symptoms of being unhealthy; and, second, he did not try to find a tournament director to explain the situation. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 18-20.

154. Despite acknowledging those mistakes, Martoccio argued that those mistakes did not violate PIAA rules. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 20.

155. Porrata then presented Gretzinger’s testimony. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 26-27.

156. Gretzinger informed the Committee that he is a parent of one of the Palisades H.S. wrestlers, and he discussed his observations of what happened with the match against Bethlehem Catholic. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 26-27.

157. Gretzinger believed that Porrata “was looking out for the best interest of the[ ] kids,” because the team “was nicked up.” PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 28.

158. Gretzinger also indicated that his opinion was “also the consensus by virtually all of the high school wrestling parents that [he] talked to. And every parent also backs [Porrata’s] decision for that Thursday night.” PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 28-29.

159. Gretzinger presented the Committee with three letters from the families of Palisades H.S. wrestlers in which the families described the health issues affecting their children and some of the other wrestlers that day. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 29; see Inj. Tr. at 164.

160. The conclusion of Porrata’s presentation before the Committee consisted of Martoccio setting forth his position on Porrata’s actions and suggesting that the Committee not impose any further sanctions. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 33-36.

161. ■ After Martoccio finished his presentation, various Committee members began to question Porrata and Heffernan. Pl.’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 36-68.

162. During this questioning, some Committee members referenced potential facts that were not part of the testimonial record at the time.

163. For example, the first member to question Porrata was Committee member Elaine Arnts (“Arnts”). PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 36.

164. Arnts asked Porrata why he went “through the warm up and coin toss if [he] didn’t have any intent of wrestling the match?” PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 36. At the time, no one had presented evidence that Palisades H.S. had gone through the warm up and coin toss.

165. Porrata answered Arnts’ question by indicating that he had taken one of his wrestlers, who could not actually wrestle because of his ear, and had him weighed in just to get a forfeit because Bethlehem Catholic did not have a wrestler at this individual’s weight class. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 36-37.

166. Another Committee member, Thomas Moll (“Moll”), asked Porrata questions about whether his ten wrestlers had wrestled in three matches: one on Monday, one on Thursday against Jim Thorpe (the meet prior to the Bethlehem Catholic match), and one on Saturday. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 37. Once again, no one had introduced evidence about a match on the Monday preceding the Bethlehem Catholicmatch.

167. Porrata answered Moll’s question by stating that he believes all ten wrestlers had participated in each of those matches. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 37.

168. Porrata informed the Committee that if he was in charge of the Saturday, February 1, 2014 match against Catasauqua High School, he “probably would not have wrestled” on Saturday. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 37.

169. Moll asked Heffernan when he first learned that Porrata did not wrestle against Bethlehem Catholic because of illness or injury. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 38.

170. Heffernan told the Committee that Porrata did not mention illness or injury when they spoke on the evening of January 30, 2014, and the first time Porrata mentioned illness or injury was during a meeting on February 6, 2014. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 38, 54.

171. Moll stated that he was in attendance at the meet between Bethlehem Catholic and Palisades, and he stated that “I have to say I find it odd that your parents would have reacted the way they did if the match was lost due to illness and injury, by standing up and giving a standing ovation. I only would have deemed that response as a result of making a statement.” Pl.’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 39.

172. Heffernan informed the Committee that he did not have any documentation indicating that the student-athletes were absent from school due to health reasons. Pl.’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 39.

173. Heffernan also informed the Committee that during a meeting with the assistant principal on January 31, 2014, nine of the ten wrestlers showed up for that meeting. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 40.

174. Porrata stated that he realized during the Jim Thorpe match that his team probably should not be wrestling that day. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 42-43.

175. Porrata stated that probably eight of the ten kids could not wrestle. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 46.

176. Nonetheless, Porrata admitted that he weighed-in a wrestler that was not cleared to wrestle to get a forfeit against Jim Thorpe. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 47.

177. Scott Dimon (“Dimon”), another Committee member, challenged Porrata’s statement that he was concerned about one of his athletes, named “Donnelley”, who was allegedly fighting the flu and losing weight. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 42-43, 47, 48.

178. Dimon noted that Donnelley had won his match against Jim Thorpe, and he wrestled on Saturday against Catasauqua High School. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 47, 48. The transcript of the Committee hearing does not reflect when Donnelley’s result against Jim Thorpe was previously introduced into the record.

179. Porrata informed the Committee that he failed to contact any of his administrators about his concerns about not participating in the match against Bethlehem Catholic. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 48.

180. Hartman also referenced information not brought up during the prior testimony in the hearing. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 48-50.

181. For example, Hartman asked whether Porrata knew about Wasser confronting Bethlehem Catholic’s coach immediately after the match. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 48, 49.

182. Hartman also stated that Wasser called him the next day, and even though Wasser’s son had an alleged hip injury, he did not mention his son’s injury. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 50. During this conversation, Wasser mentioned his disdain for Bethlehem Catholic to Hartman. Id. at 50.

183. Hartman further stated he received two or three e-mails from Palisades parents, none of which addressed injury or illness and all of which addressed disdain for Bethlehem Catholic. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 50.

184. Dennis Nemes (“Nemes”), another Committee member, stated that Palisades H.S. had six of its wrestlers pin their opponents and three of its wrestlers have major decisions against their opponents in the Jim Thorpe match. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 51.

185. Nemes referenced the short times of some of the matches as demonstrating Palisades H.S.’s stellar performance against Jim Thorpe. Pl.’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 51.

186. Porrata informed the Committee that Palisades H.S. wrestlers dominated the match against Jim Thorpe because Jim Thorpe was an inferior opponent. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 51.

187. At one point, in support of his contention that his wrestlers were ill and injured, Porrata attempted to state that some of his wrestlers went straight from the mat to the locker room because of illness, Pl.’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 52.

187. Nemes somewhat rebuffed this statement by explaining that he was at the match with Bethlehem Catholic and although he could not say that it did not happen, he did not see any wrestlers go straight from the mat to the locker room. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 52. Nonetheless, through his “personal observations,” Nemes felt the Palisades H.S. wrestlers “looked pretty healthy to [him]” and the results of the Jim Thorpe match showed they were healthy. Id.

189. Porrata told the Committee about his prior history with a Morning Call reporter to whom he refused to comment to after the match. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 54. Porrata indicated that he did not comment to the press because he “didn’t think it was a huge deal.” Id. at 55. He also stated that he contacted George about whether he could talk to the press, and she told him he should not. Id.

190. Porrata told the Committee that he did not attend a meeting that occurred between Hartman and some other coaches to address concerns with teams forfeiting against Bethlehem Catholic. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 56.

191. Ray Kinder, secretary of the Committee, stated that people are not happy with Bethlehem Catholic, and that other coaches have discussed forfeiting against them. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 58-59.

192. Porrata indicated that he realized that he created a situation when the team was forfeiting, and he was going to talk to Bethlehem Catholic’s coach after the match to explain to him what happened, but the coach refused to come out and shake hands with him and his team. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 59.

193. At that point, Porrata was “really angry that [the coach] didn’t even acknowledge my team.” PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 59. Thus, Porrata did not talk to the press because he was afraid to speak emotionally and speak badly about Bethlehem Catholic. Id.

194. Dave Troxell (“Troxell”), another Committee member, inquired why, if Palisades was suffering from illness and injury, did Porrata and two of the student-athletes stay and watch the match between Catasauqua and Northern Lehigh. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 60.

195. Porrata responded to Troxell by stating that most of the players went home with their parents, and he was there with the only two players that took the bus. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr. at 60.

196. Porrata indicated that his team did not warm up for the Bethlehem Catholic match. PL’s Ex. 1, Comm. Hrg. Tr.