Judge Diane Freniere denied a motion for an emergency injunction that would have reinstated Boston College’s swim and dive program in a ruling on Thursday.
“Given the record before this court, I will not issue the extraordinary injunctive relief requested where the plaintiffs have substantiated their side of critical facts in dispute not on firsthand knowledge, but rather on information and belief allegations,” the ruling reads.
Thirty-seven student-athletes had filed a lawsuit against the University on Oct. 17 in Middlesex County Superior Court for allegedly imposing an unjustified blanket suspension on BC men’s and women’s swim and dive after recent hazing allegations.
Freniere also preliminarily ruled that the student-athletes’ claims of breach of contract, denial of basic fairness, estoppel, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress—which seek monetary damages—are unlikely to succeed in court.
The student-athletes’ motion for an emergency injunction called for the University to reverse the program’s indefinite suspension, issue a public retraction of its previous statements, and remove any notation of suspension from the University’s records or the individual records of the 37 members.
Freniere’s most recent ruling comes a day after she denied the student-athletes’ motion to maintain anonymity in court proceedings.
In a statement to The Heights, University Spokesperson Jack Dunn said BC is pleased with the judge’s decision, which he said affirms the “gravity of these allegations” against the swim and dive program.
“In the meantime, we will continue with our University investigation and conduct process in accordance with our established protocols,” he said.
To obtain an injunction, the plaintiffs’ claims must show a likelihood of success, that irreparable harm will result from denial of the injunction, and that the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs outweighs the potential harm to the defendant in granting the injunction, according to the ruling.
The student-athletes’ request for an emergency injunction was based on the allegation BC violated their Title IX rights. They argued that other all-male BC teams have engaged in similar behavior without the University suspending them.
In his affidavit on Monday, Athletics Director Blake James states that the decision to suspend the program had nothing to do with the fact that the team is co-ed.
Freniere ruled that the student-athletes’ claim BC violated their Title IX rights was not backed by enough evidence.
“These allegations are presented without any factual detail and reveal only what the plaintiffs hope to be able to prove based on second-hand information,” the ruling reads.
The ruling also said that the team’s suspension was warranted as the University discovered hazing occurred in 2022, and the “Frosh” event is part of an annual freshman hazing initiation.
“That Boston College’s investigation revealed that certain [upperclassmen] were assigned to take care of freshmen who were sick or otherwise overly intoxicated is an acknowledgement by those involved in the hazing activity that they understood the potential, serious consequences of their acts, but proceeded nonetheless,” the ruling reads.
Freniere also stated that members of the team were “clearly and repeatedly” made aware that hazing violated the rules of their team, BC Athletics, and Massachusetts state law.
As for the plaintiffs’ defamation claims, Freniere ruled that James’ affidavit substantiated BC Athletics’ Sept. 20 statement, which said the department discovered hazing occurred within the swim and dive program.
“Thus the plaintiffs have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their defamation claim,” the memorandum reads.
The plaintiffs failed to prove BC intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon them, which requires them to argue the University’s conduct was “extreme and outrageous,” according to Freniere.
“Conduct qualifies as extreme and outrageous only if it ‘go[es] beyond all possible bounds of decency, and [is] regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community,’” the ruling reads, citing Roman v. Trustees of Tufts College.
The judge rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that the University caused them “irreparable harm,” stating that the provided evidence did not prove any legal wrongdoing.
“Although the court acknowledges the personal pains reported by the plaintiffs resulting from the loss of their diving and swimming team association, they have failed to show that the defendants acted unlawfully,” the ruling reads.
