Russell Westbrook shuts down Jazz fan's defamation appeal as court rejects claims of racist remarks during NBA game
The Utah Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling to dismiss a defamation lawsuit against the Utah Jazz and former OKC Thunder point guard Russell Westbrook, denying the request to reinstate the case.
Shane Keisel, a fan of the Utah Jazz, filed the lawsuit after receiving a lifetime ban from Jazz games in 2019 following a confrontation with Russell Westbrook, who was playing for the Oklahoma City Thunder at that time. He filed the lawsuit, worth $100 million, along with his girlfriend Jennifer Huff, claiming defamation and infliction of emotional stress.
Russell Westbrook alleged that Shane Keisel made racially insensitive remarks towards him, specifically citing the comment "get on your knees like you're used to." In response, Keisel argued that he had actually said, "ice those knees up," claiming that his words were on par with those of other audience members in the section.
Westbrook was recorded telling Keisal and Huff, "I'll f**k you up," and was fined $25,000 by the NBA "for directing profanity and threatening language to a fan."
The lawsuit was dismissed in May 2021.
Why did the appellate favor Russell Westbrook?
The unanimous ruling, published on Saturday night, marked the end of the legal battle involving Russell Westbrook, the Jazz and the two fans.
“Westbrook’s outburst occurred at a professional sporting event, a place where society has unfortunately come to expect some amount of intemperate behavior,” the Court of Appeals said. “And the outburst at issue also wasn’t unprovoked. Again, Keisel admitted that Westbrook was responding to an initial statement from Keisel.”
As noted by lawyer Jonathan Turley, the appellate cited the district’s conclusion that the outburst took place "in the presence of security personnel and thousands of spectators," and that despite the incident, Keisel and Huff opted to "remain in the Arena to watch the rest of the game."
The fans’ decision to finish the game, the appellate noted, contradicted any notion that they genuinely believed there was a "real risk that Westbrook would make good on his threat."
“Profane outbursts are of course unfortunate and disfavored in civil society. But even so, courts commonly hold that, without something more, a profane outburst isn’t enough to sustain an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim,” the court noted.
“We certainly don’t condone what Westbrook said,” it added. “Sports and society alike would be better off without such language. And for that matter, the other fans who were sitting nearby deserved far better from both Westbrook and Keisel. These two adults could and should have found a way to disagree better.”