Former Stanford Football Coach Files Defamation Suit

While the Stanford football has struggled on the football field over recent years, the program has generated no shortage of headlines over the course of the offseason.

The first major piece of news coming out of Palo Alto surfaced last November when it was announced that former Cardinal and NFL star Andrew Luck was taking over as the program’s General Manager. While many college football teams have hired GMs in recent years to navigate the complexities of NIL and the transfer portal, not all of these positions entail the same job responsibilities and decision making authority within the structure of the program. According to ESPN’s Pete Thamel, Luck’s position at Stanford places him atop of the football program and is a distinct evolution from the traditional power structure where athletic directors and head coaches possess the ultimate decision making authority.

As if bringing back a legend as General Manager wasn’t newsworthy enough, it was far from the only program altering change that occured since Stanford’s final game in the 2024 season. This past March, Luck, in his capacity as GM, fired head coach Troy Taylor after an investigation found Taylor had been “inconsistent with the standards” of Stanford in his behavior. More on his termination later.

Taylor, 57, led Sacramento State to FCS playoff appearances in each of his three seasons. Stanford’s then-athletic director Bernard Muir hired him in ahead of the 2023 season after the departure of longtime coach David Shaw. Taylor went 3-9 in each of his two seasons in Palo Alto. As a result of Taylor’s termination, Luck hired his former head coach with the Indianapolis Colts, Frank Reich, as the program’s interim head coach for the 2025 season.

As the Cardinal open training camp ahead of their Week 0 game against Hawaii, more news circulated out of Northern California.

In the past few weeks, Taylor filed a defamation lawsuit against ESPN and one of its reporters, Xuan Thai. The lawsuit arises from a series of articles regarding allegations Taylor “bullied” and “belittled” female Stanford athletics staffers. As mentioned above, Stanford fired Taylor shortly after the articles were published, and he contends the articles were the reason he was terminated.  

In his complaint, Taylor argues that the investigations into him did not conclude that he bullied or belittled female staffers. He claims multiple investigations into him found insufficient evidence to support the claim that his actions were gender-biased or rose to gender-based misconduct.

Moreover, in accordance with defamation suits, the lawsuit alleges that ESPN and Thai acted with actual malice, knowingly publishing false information to harm Taylor's reputation. Taylor claims that the defendants had access to the investigatory reports, which contradicted their published statements, yet chose to ignore these facts.

Taylor asserts that the false reporting led to his termination and caused severe damage to his reputation, making it difficult for him to find future employment in the coaching profession. Additionally, despite being notified of the inaccuracies, Taylor claims ESPN and Thai did not retract or correct their statements, further exacerbating the harm to Taylor's reputation.

Taylor seeks damages for the harm caused to his reputation and career, as well as punitive damages for the defendants' willful and malicious conduct.

Nonetheless, the lawsuit, filed in a California federal district court, will face hurdles. A major challenge for Taylor is that he is a public figure, which means he’ll need to establish ESPN acted with “actual malice.” The test for actual malice is whether ESPN published a false statement knowing it was false or having reckless disregard as to whether it was false. Given that articles are typically vetted by editors, who usually require multiple sources and other methods of fact-checking, media companies can often persuasively argue that they made good faith and reasonable efforts to confirm information before an article was published.

It will be interesting to see how this case develops. For Taylor, his overarching interest is restoring his reputation with the hopes of landing another coaching job. As a successful high school as FCS head coach at Sacramento State, Taylor certainly knows how to run a program. His lack of success in his short time at Stanford shouldn’t be an ultimatum on his ability to coach. In the ever-changing landscape of college football, Stanford has been negativily impacted as much as any power conference program.

Given the school’s rigorous academic standards, the emergence of the early signing period, transfer portal, and NIL have made Stanford one of the hardest jobs in college football. In addition, the recent move to the ACC hasn’t helped matters either. Could Taylor have turned Stanford around with more time? We’ll never know. But what is important is that if the allegations made against Taylor were falsified, Taylor should be able to resurrect his reputation in the industry. If they weren't, it may be hard for him to find another job in major college football. The outcome of this case will play a big role in that possibility.

Brendan Bell is a 3L at SMU Dedman School of Law. He writes primarily on legal issues in MLB and College Athletics.