Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Plaintiff?s burden of proof in a lawsuit alleging he or she was defamed by the employer

Plaintiff?s burden of proof in a lawsuit alleging he or she was defamed by the employer
Freddie Williams, Jr. v Detroit Board Of Education, et al, USCA, 6th Circuit, Docket No. 07-2520, Filed: January 15, 2009 [not recommended for publication]

An employee may, on occasion, bring a lawsuit against his or her employer alleging some action or actions of the employer constituted defamation.

Freddie Williams, Jr., a former high school principal at Detroit?s Trombly High School, sued the Detroit Board of Education alleging it had defamed him when it dismissed him from his position.

According to the decision, the Board had received complaints alleging that Williams was ?misappropriating school funds and equipment.? Other complaints alleged that Williams was ?frequently absent, took home computers, and bought personal supplies with district funds.?
The District?s Audit Department investigated and concluded that Williams was responsible for financial irregularities at Trombly, and his conduct violated district policy and procedure. As a result, the Board placed Williams on administrative leave without pay.

Subsequently the Detroit News published an article about the audit report that set forth some of the allegations against Williams set out in the audit report. The Detroit Free Press also published articles on the audit report?s allegations.

Following his termination by Detroit, Williams obtained employment as principal at a private school. The private school, however, terminated Williams three days later because of the ?charges published by the Board.?

The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court?s granting Detroit?s motion for summary judgment on Williams?s defamation claim.

The court than explained the burdens placed on a plaintiff in a defamation action.

The Circuit Court said that regardless of whether or not Williams is a public official, ?we hold that the controversy over Williams?s alleged misappropriation of public school funds is a matter of public concern, triggering a requirement that he prove that the allegedly defamatory statements are false.? Because Williams has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the statements are false, the Circuit Court ruled that granting the District?s motion for summary judgment was proper.

The court the indicated that in order to establish a defamation claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant 1) made a ?false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff?; 2) communicated the statement to a third party without privilege; and 3) acted with ?fault amounting to at least negligence.?

Further, said the court, the plaintiff must also show that the defamatory statement is actionable ?irrespective of special harm? [defamation per se] or that publication of the statement caused special harm [defamation per quod].

If, however, the plaintiff is a public official or a public figure, the Circuit Court said that the First Amendment requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant?s statements are false and that the defendant acted with actual malice, citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.

What constitutes ?actual malice?? The defendant knew the allegedly defamatory statement was false when it was made, or acted ?with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.?

As noted, in the event the plaintiff is neither a public official nor a public figure, but the defendant?s statements relate to a matter of public concern, the plaintiff must show that the alleged defamatory statements are false.

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0030n-06.pdf

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on January 23, 2009 (boomark / email).