AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Defamation
Monthly Law Journal Article: Defamation Claims Against and By Public Safety Personnel - Part 1, 2018 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Defamation Claims Against and By Public Safety Personnel - Part 2, 2018 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Defamation Claims Against and By Public Safety Personnel - Part 3, 2018 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Public Safety Employee Right to "Name-Clearing" Hearings, 2018 (11) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
A man sued the city and its mayor after the mayor chose not to nominate him for police chief. He claimed that the city violated his rights under Massachusetts state law by deciding not to hire him because of his failure to disclose a criminal case against him of which he was later acquitted and that the mayor defamed him through statements she made to the media about him explaining her decision. The state law in question made it unlawful for the employer to “exclude, limit or otherwise discriminate against any person by reason of his or her failure to furnish such information through a written application or oral inquiry or otherwise regarding . . . an arrest, detention, or disposition regarding any violation of law in which no conviction resulted.” A jury found for plaintiff on both claims and awarded $750,000 in compensatory damages for defamation, and $750,000 in punitive damages for the claim against the city. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial on the defamation claim because the statement at issue was not false as required for defamation. It also found that the evidence was sufficient with respect to the state law claim against the city as the decision appeared to be based on his nondisclosure of the criminal charges, rather than on the basis of the information itself, obtained from a third party, but that there was insufficient evidence to support the punitive damages award. The plaintiff did not make the required showing that the mayor knew her conduct was unlawful, and the jury’s finding of no actual harm was an argument against the imposition of punitive damages. Heagney v. Wong, #17-2033, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 4059 (1st Cir.).
After the Massachusetts governor removed the chair of the state Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB), he made statements to the media concerning his reasons for doing so, including allegations that she had interfered with the independence of a SORB hearing officer. She sued the state for wrongful termination and the governor for defamation. The highest court in the state ruled that the defamation claims should be dismissed, since the plaintiff did not allege facts that were sufficient to establish that the governor made false statements about her with “actual malice,” the required legal standard in a defamation claim against a public official. Regardless of the governor's alleged spiteful, negative feelings toward the plaintiff, she was still required to allege specific facts to prove that the governor made his statements to the media with actual malice, knowledge of their falsity, or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. Edwards v. Commonwealth, #SJC-12175, 477 Mass. 254, 2017 Mass. Lexis 374.
A police officer fiiled a written
complaint with his chief, reporting that fellow officers and county sheriff's
deputies had been racially profiling minority citizens and committing other
constitutional violations. As a result, he claimed, among other retaliatory
actions, a be-on-the -lookout advisory (“BOLO”) to all law enforcement in
Douglas County, Georgia, described him as a “loose cannon.” “Consider this man
a danger to any [law enforcement officer] in Douglas County and act
accordingly,” the BOLO alarmingly warned and ominously instructed. He had
previously been terminated as an officer, but appealed that decision, again
repeating his allegations. The BOLO was issued the day after the termination
appeal hearing by a major with the county sheriff's office. After the BOLO was
issued, his car was allegedly followed by both police and sheriff's vehicles.
He was later allowed to return to work as an officer. He sued the major in his
official and individual capacities for defamation and retaliation in violation
of his First Amendment rights. Rejecting defenses of qualified immunity on the
First Amendment retaliation claim and official immunity by the defendant major
on the defamation claim, the appeals court found that the plaintiff's alleged
facts would support a reasonable inference that the police department
communicated with the Sheriff’s Department about the plaintiff's complaints
prior to the issuance of the be-on-the-lookout advisory (BOLO), that the Sheriff’s
Office and the major knew about the termination-appeal hearing, and that the
major issued the BOLO at least in part in retaliation for plaintiff's
complaints, in violation of the First Amendment. The court also ruled that the
plaintiff's constitutional right to be free from retaliation that imperiled his
life was clearly established at the time that the BOLO was issued. The
allegations satisfied the showing of a deliberate intention to do wrong—that
is, actual malice. "Our First Amendment demands that a law enforcement
officer may not use his powerful post to chill or punish speech he does not
like. If he does so, he may not hide behind the veil of qualified
immunity." Bailey v. Major Tommy Wheeler, #15-11627, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis
21194 (11th Cir.).
Two employees of the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sued a local police chief for
slander and interference with advantageous business relations after he called
another DHS agent to complain about their allegedly "unprofessional"
behavior during an encounter. The grant of summary judgment to the defendant on
both claims was upheld by a federal appeals court. The allegedly defamatory
statements amounted to non-actionable opinions, and the chief fully disclosed
the non-defamatory facts about the confrontation in a way that enabled the DHS
agent contacted to form his own opinion. Piccone v. Bartels, #14-1989, 2015
U.S. App. Lexis 7582 (1st Cir.).
The Chief Deputy Register of Deeds fr a county
sought an interim appointment from the governor for the Register when that
position, normally elected, became vacant. After the governor's appointment
secretary interviewed her, he became aware that she was involved in a personal
bankruptcy and informed her that she would not be appointed. She alleged that
the governor's official spokesman and the governor defamed her by publically
making statements that she was not appointed because she was in a bankruptcy
proceeding. She asserted claims for violation of privacy rights, employment
rights, and bankruptcy discrimination under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 525(a). A federal
appeals court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on
both her privacy and equal protection claims. Chasensky v. Walker, #13-1761,
2014 U.S. App. Lexis 1160 (7th Cir.).
After a correctional employee was demoted for
violating a state travel billing policy, the department's Commissioner
responded to media questions about the demotion. The employee sued for
defamation. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the state and cabinet level
executive officials were absolutely immune from a defamation claim arising in
this manner--for statements made while performing official duties. Jones v.
State, #M2012-02546-SC-S09-CV, 2013 Tenn. Lexis 1013.
Muslim police officer who was terminated
after being questioned by the FBI for possible links to terrorist groups
accepts a $125,000 from the city and school district. A flier with his police
ID photo had been circulated in the local school district advising that he is
"currently under investigation by the FBI for possible affiliation with a
terrorist organization." Fernandes v. City of Fremont, Calif. [Cal. Govt.
Code §910-913.2 claim]
Wisconsin appellate court holds that workers'
compensation is not the exclusive remedy for a former county employee, who
brought a defamation lawsuit based on statements that were made after his
resignation. Anderson v. Hebert, #2010AP1992, 2011 Wisc. App. Lexis 203.
A public employee sued officials after an
advertisement was published in the local newspaper that appeared to solicit
applicants for his job. He was embarrassed and stressed by the newspaper ad and
questions about it from people in town. In rejecting his claims, the Montana
Supreme Court noted that his employment was not terminated, no one was hired to
replace him, and he suffered no loss of wages. Jensen v. Absarokee W&S
Dist., #DA 10-0039, 2010 MT 189N, 2010 Mont. Lexis 291 (unpub.).
Federal court rules that calling someone a homosexual
is not defamation per se. Stern v. Cosby, #1:07-cv-08536, PACER Doc. 138
(S.D.N.Y.).
Illinois appellate panel finds that the First
Amendment’s freedom of religion clause protects persons who testify against a
priest in an internal disciplinary proceeding, and a defamation suit filed by
the accused party must fail. Stepak v. Doe, #1-08-2140 (Catholic Bishop of
Chicago), 2009 Ill. App. Lexis 513 (1st Dist.), citing Serbian E. Orth. Diocese
v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976).
Although a misconduct
complaint about another officer, sent to one's superiors, is absolutely
privileged from defamation claims, but it is not immunized from liability if
the allegations are revealed to officers outside the complainant's chain of
command. It becomes a conditional privilege and is a question of fact for the
jury as to whether the privilege was abused. Anderson v. Beach, #1-07-1911,
2008 Ill. App. Lexis 1047 (1st Dist.).
Justice Dept. agrees to settle with scientist
Stephen Hatfill, who was identified by then Attorney General Ashcroft as a
"Person of Interest" in an investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks
on the Congress. Hatfill was followed 24/7 by FBI agents, and lost a $150,000
university teaching job on the order of Justice officials. The DoJ has agreed
to pay Dr. Hatfill and his attorneys $2.825 million and to fund an annuity
paying him $150,000 for life. Hatfill v. Mukasey (formerly Hatfill v.
Ashcroft), #03-cv-1793, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17756 (D.D.C.); #08-5049, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 5755 & 6242 (D.C. Cir.). View: Complaint and DoJ Press Release
#08-576.
A police chief had a triable defamation claim
against the public safety director who published a report containing an
inmate's allegation that the police chief had impregnated a juvenile
prostitute; the director failed to learn that the chief had undergone a
vasectomy. Jackson v. City of Columbus, #2006-2096, 2008-Ohio-1041, 117 Ohio
St.3d 328, 883 N.E.2d 1060, 27 IER Cases (BNA) 516, 2008 Ohio Lexis 558.
Florida appellate court overturns a defamation
jury verdict in favor of a police officer against his lieutenant. The
lieutenant was entitled to absolute immunity because his statements were within
the scope of his authority and duties. Cassell v. India, #4D06-1716, 2007 Fla.
App. Lexis 13001 (4th Dist.).
Police chief's defamation claim against the mayor
is dismissed, even if the mayor acted with malice, a defamation action against
a city official for disciplining the plaintiff was barred by absolute immunity.
Schultea vs. City of Patton Village, #H-06-0666, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 78381
(S.D. Tex. 2006). {N/R}
Appellate court rejects the claims of a police
chief that he was defamed in a mayoral report. Jackson v. City of Columbus,
#05AP-1035, 2006 Ohio App. Lexis 5166 (10th App. Dist. 2006). {N/R}
Defamatory statements about a police chief
contained in an investigative report ordered by the mayor were protected by the
public interest privilege. Jackson v. City of Columbus, #05AP-1035, 2006 Ohio
5089, 2006 Ohio App. Lexis 5019 (10th App. Dist. 2006). {N/R}
During a state police investigation, police
employees' claims of injury to their reputations must fail because there were
no adverse personnel actions, such as a loss of pay or benefits, changed
working conditions, demotions or terminations. Heller v. Fulare, #04-265J, 2006
U.S. Dist. Lexis 69162 (W.D. Pa. 2006), on remand from 454 F.3d 174 (3d Cir.
2006). {N/R}
Ex Florida deputy and his wife awarded $1,231,700
million against the county. The plaintiffs were falsely accused of bringing
drugs into the jail -- and management allegedly botched the internal
investigation. Femminella v. Palm Beach County, Docket #50-204 CA 002604, CFN
20060081517 (15th Circuit Court, Fla.). [2006 FP Jun]
Fourth Circuit refuses to dismiss defamation suit
brought by a former Army scientist who was identified as a "person of
interest" in the 2001 anthrax killings. Hatfill v. N.Y. Times Co.,
#04-2561, 427 F.3d 253, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 22397 (4th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
Second Circuit affirms the dismissal of a lawsuit
filed by 23 police officers who claimed that their reputations were harmed by
the release of an internal investigative Report. None of the plaintiffs were
named in the Report, and the chief was not a party to the lawsuit. Algarin v.
Town of Wallkill, #04-2607, 421 F.3d 137, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 18762 (2nd Cir.
2005). [2005 FP Nov]
Canadian police chief receives a settlement of
Can-$5,000 [US-$4,000] from a couple who anonymously published a web blog that
that accused him of being a "rotten apple" and heading a
"corrupt" administration. Beaton v. Fisher, Queen's Bench, Alberta.
Source: CBC News and Calgary Sun (30 Apr. 2005). {N/R}
Appellate court holds that a police officer and
his wife could sue because of statements, made on a radio show, that he had
stabbed another officer and had engaged in an extra-marital affair. The
statements were defamatory per se because they alleged criminal activity and
serious sexual misconduct. Gordon v. Boyles, #02CA2196, 99 P.3d 75 (Colo. App.
2004). {N/R}
Internal performance reports of a probationary
officer that were not made public cannot be the basis for a defamation claim.
Luy v. Baltimore Police Dept., #CCB-03-2833, 326 F.Supp.2d 682 (D.Md. 2004).
{N/R}
Connecticut Supreme Court holds that citizen complaints
made to an internal affairs office are protected from defamation lawsuits, even
if deliberately false. Craig v. Stafford, #SC 17073, 271 Conn. 78, 856 A.2d
372, 2004 Conn. Lexis 361 (2004).[2005 FP Jan]
Iowa Supreme Court sustains a verdict of $96,000
in compensatory and $60,000 in punitive damages for a woman deputy who sued a
male deputy for sending an altered photo of her, in uniform, with her breasts
exposed. The justices also reversed a trial court order dismissing the county
and the sheriff from liability for negligent retention of the male officer.
Kiesau v. Bantz, #03-0815, 686 N.W.2d 164, 2004 Iowa Sup. Lexis 229 and 256
(2004). [2004 FP Dec]
Iowa Supreme Court holds that prosecutorial
immunity does not apply to a county attorney who told a police chief and a
mayor that he would not prosecute any cases involving the office because he had
lied to investigators about his wife's death. The officer was fired and sued
the county attorney for defamation, interference with employment contract, and
unlawful dissemination of "intelligence data." Beck v. Phillips,
#76/03-0645, 685 N.W.2d 637, 2004 Iowa Sup. Lexis 228 (Iowa 2004). {N/R}
Appeals court rejects a defamation claim by a
worker who was fired after a background investigation revealed possible criminal
conduct. The signed release barred any lawsuit, even if the firm that oversaw
the investigation did not have a state license to conduct investigations.
McCleskey v. Vericon Resources, #A03A1066, 2003 Ga. App. Lexis 1376, 20 IER
Cases (BNA) 1065 (2003). [2004 FP Feb]
Federal court rejects a civil rights lawsuit
filed by officers who complain that an internal investigation of the behavior
was biased, but they may be able to prove that statements made by an
investigator were defamatory. Keim v. Co. of Bucks, 275 F.Supp.2d 628, 2003
U.S. Dist. Lexis 13926 (E.D. Pa. 2003). [Dec FP 2003]
Federal appeals court holds that a county is not
liable under §1983 for public statements made by a member of the county board
of commissioners concerning the job performance of a county employee. Also,
under state law, the commissioner was entitled to absolute immunity for his
statements. LaVerdure v. Co. of Montgomery, #02-2773, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 6547
(3rd Cir. 2003). {N/R}
Prison warden could not sue a Connecticut
newspaper in Virginia for posting allegedly defamatory matter on its website.
"A court in Virginia cannot constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over
the Connecticut-based newspaper defendants because they did not manifest an
intent to aim their websites or the posted articles at a Virginia
audience." Young v. New Haven Advocate, #01-2340, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis
25535 (4th Cir. amended 2003). {N/R}
Ninth Circuit upholds the right of a police
officer to sue entertainer George Michael for slander and the intentional
infliction of emotional distress. The singer accused the undercover officer of
provoking Michael's lewd conduct in a public toilet. Rodriguez v. Panayiotou,
#00-56923, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 24352 (9th Cir. 2002). [2003 FP Feb]
Federal appeals court rejects a libel action
brought by a former FBI official who was accused of having advance knowledge
about the 1998 Pan Am 103 bombing. Revell v. Hoffman, #01-6169, 2002 U.S. App.
Lexis 22624 (10th Cir. 2002). [2003 FP Jan]
Jury awards an applicant for a federal
immigration officer position over $30,000 in compensatory and $500,000 in
punitive damages against a former employer who falsely accused him of theft and
revealing classified military information. Ake v. Hirazumi, #994566, 45 (9)
ATLA L. Rptr. (Unpub. Hawaii Cir. Ct. 2002). {N/R}
Public official was not entitled to a court order
compelling a reporter to disclose his source for an allegedly defamatory
article. Weinberger v. Maplewood Review, #C7-01-2021, 2002 Minn. App. Lexis 711
(Minn. App. 2002). {N/R}
California appeals court strikes down a law that
allowed peace officers to sue citizens for knowingly making a false complaint
of misconduct. Walker v. Kiousis, #E029822, 93 Cal.App. 4th 1432, 2001 Cal.
App. Lexis 2584, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 01 C.D.O.S. 10003 (4th Dist.). [2002 FP
Mar]
Court dismisses a suit of a former FBI agent who
was involved the "Travelgate" investigation of White House staff,
brought against a "media commentator," who made various statements
regarding the agent in 1996. The agent was unable to show that the commentator
acted with malice and the federal agent was a limited public figure. The
commentator was entitled to a qualified privilege because there was a
reasonable basis for his statements. Sculimbrene v. Reno, #99-2010, 158
F.Supp.2d 8, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12307 (D.D.C. 2001). {N/R}
Illinois appeals court holds that complaints of
coworker misconduct are absolutely privileged against lawsuits for reputational
injuries. Busch v. Bates, #5-99-0638, 753 N.E.2d 1184, 2001 Ill. App. Lexis
596. [2001 FP 163]
Appellate court allows a police sergeant to sue
an officer for defamation and economic losses. The officer, of Japanese origin,
had reported to management that the sergeant muttered "fucking gooks"
in his presence. McNamee v. Jenkins, #98-P-2204, 52 Mass. App. 503, 2001 Mass.
App. Lexis 883. {N/R}
Sheriff Dept. that provided deputies to accompany
a private employer for the purpose of firing employees was not defamatory. D'Errico
v. DeFazio, 763 A.2d 424 (Pa. Super.). {N/R}
Federal appeals court rejects a suit by a citizen
seeking to overturn a California statute giving a law enforcement officer the
right to sue citizens for making false complaints against them. Gritchen v.
Collier, #99-56940, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 12869 (9th Cir. 2001) reversing 73
F.Supp.2d 1148 (C.D. Cal. 1999). {N/R}
Lawsuit filed by a former housing authority
police officer for defamation is dismissed because of statutory immunity. King
v. City of Chicago, #1-99-4123, 2001 Ill. App. Lexis 644 (1st Dist., 2001).
{N/R}
Federal appeals court rejects a suit against the
city filed by a dispatcher who was fired for making a false crime report. City
kept the details of her termination confidential and did not violate her
reputational rights. Hughes v. City of Garland, #99-10482, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis
1789 (5th Cir.). [2000 FP 51]
A town Selectman's statements about the chief of
police were absolutely privileged from a claim for defamation, where the
statements were made at town meeting, and involved an issue properly raised at
a town meeting. Voelbel v. Town of Bridgewater, 747 A.2d 252, 1999 N.H. Lexis
161, 15 IER Cases (BNA) 1639 (N.H.). {N/R}
A statute permitting police officers to sue for defamation
those who falsely complain about them to their employers violates the First
Amendment. Haddad v. Wall, 107 F.Supp.2d 1230. {N/R}
Illinois appellate court allows a lawfully
terminated sexual harasser to sue his superior and the employer for publicizing
the reason for his dismissal. Parker v. Bank of Marion, 695 N.E.2d 1370, 1998
Ill.App. Lexis 390, 231 Ill. Dec. 251. [1998 FP 149]
Calling a sarcoidosistic worker a
"cocksucker with a two inch dick," a "dago guinea" or a
"short, ugly and stupid Italian" was not defamatory. However,
employer could be sued for a supervisor's same-gender harassing language,
creating a hostile environment. Grillo v. John Alden Ins., 939 F.Supp. 685
(D.Minn. 1996). {N/R}
Statements accusing police chief of official
misconduct (including corruption, coverups and racial discrimination) were
susceptible of defamatory meaning; councilman's statements were not
"personal opinion." Scott v. Cooper, 640 N.Y.S.2d 248 (A.D. 1996).
{N/R}
S.C. Supreme Court upholds $750,000 defamation
verdict awarded to an asst. police chief against the City Administrator. He was
publicly accused of sexual harassment without just cause. Miller v. City of
West Columbia, 1996 S.C. Lexis 86, 471 S.E.2d 683. [1996 FP 132]
Suit against mayor for stating that a police
applicant "flunked" the exam and was a "lunatic" fails.
Suppan v. Kratzer, 660 A.2d 226 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995). [1996 FP 60]
Employer could be sued for defamation where the
medium was internal company e-mail. Employer announced the plaintiff's
termination to other employees, for "credit card fraud," where no
fraud was intended by the employee. Meloff v NYLIC, 51 F.3d 372/at375-6 (2nd
Cir. 1995). {N/R}
Defamation suit was preempted by LMRA.
Arbitration award reinstating the plaintiff precluded a state-law action for
damages. Furillo v. Dana Corp., 150 LRRM 2785 (E.D.Pa. 1995); also see 866
F.Supp. 842 (1994). [1996 FP 35]
Two police officers win $1.2 million for enduring
false rumors they were romantically involved. City took more than a year to
finish the investigation; EEOC requires employers to take prompt action. Baker
v. City of Oceanside, San Diego Co. Super. Ct. #N56730, 33 (1605) G.E.R.R. 341
(1994); Simpson v. City of Oceanside, San Diego Co. Super. Ct. #N56726 (1994).
[1995 FP 85]
Statements made by workers to their employer
during the course of an internal investigation are privileged communications
and cannot be the subject of a suit for defamation, unless they were made with
malice or ill will. Herlihy v. M.M.A., 214 A.D.2d 250, 633 N.Y.S.2d 106 (1995).
{N/R}
Appellate court reverses $80,000 judgment given
an ex-employee who claimed it was defamation to terminate her for misconduct in
front of her supervisor. Harrel v. Dillards, 644 N.E.2d 448, 1994 Ill.App.
Lexis 1452. [1995 FP 68]
"An employer enjoys a qualified privilege
when commenting on personnel matters to those who have a legitimate and direct
interest in the subject matter of the communication. A company's employees have
a legitimate and direct interest in the reasons for a co-worker's
dismissal." Esmark v. James, 10 F.3d 1156, 1994 U.S. App. Lexis 267,
relying on state law announced in Bulloch v. City of Pascagoula, 574 So.2d 637
(Miss. 1990). {N/R}
IL appellate court declines to hold employers
liable because an internal investigation could have been conducted with greater
skill. "An employer should have the right to directly confront its
employee with allegations of unlawful activity. We will not require employers
to finesse their way around direct allegations of criminal activity when
confronting such employees in order to avoid making a possibly defamatory
statement." Larson v. Decatur, 602 N.E.2d 864, 1992 Ill.App. Lexis 173
{N/R}
Appellate court overturns $250,000 award to
slandered police applicant. Allegation the applicant cheated was untrue, but
made without malice. Dvorak v. O'Flynn, 808 S.W.2d 912 (Mo.App. 1991). [1992 FP
84]
Sheriff, as a former employer, was privileged to
state his opinion of the applicant to a prospective employer. Introini v.
Richland County, 9 IER Cases (BNA) 1149 (D.S.C. 1993). [1994 FP 163]
Terminated officer could not sue for reputational
injuries because stigmatizing information was put in his employment file. Even
if untrue, prior employer actually must disclose derogatory accusations before
a compensable injury occurs. Johnson v. Martin, 943 F.2d 15 (7th Cir. 1991). »
See also: Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 2074 (1976); Ratliff v. City
of Milwaukee, 795 F.2d 612 (7th Cir. 1986). Brandt v. Bd. of Co-op Educ. Serv.,
820 F.2d 41 (2nd Cir. 1987) holds to the contrary. [1992 FP 52]
Missouri police officer wins $2.25 million
default judgment against the Klan over false allegations of misconduct.
Robinson v. Ku Klux Klan, Greene Co. MO Cir. Ct. (7/18/91), as reported in the
Springfield News-Leader.
Ex-officer who killed UT sniper has sued TBS to
stop reruns of a movie that depicts him as a coward; $14 million sought in
damages. McCoy v. Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. U.S. Dist. Ct. (W.D. Tex.
11/28/90).
Jury awards $210,000 in punitive damages against
former employees who defamed two co-workers by allegations of unlawful conduct.
Cincinnati Bell v. Gates, Cm. Pls. Hamilton Co. #A-8900494 (2/12/90).
Training academy officials hit with $150,000 in
punitive damages, plus $100,000 in compensatory damages, for slander of test
candidate; defense unable to prove cheating allegation. [Steve] Dvorak v. Board
of Police Cmsnrs. et al, Circuit Ct. of City of St. Louis (3/16/90).
Councilman who publicly called chief a "dumb
son-of-a-bitch" and "incompetent" did not commit a slander.
Finck v. City of Tea, 443 N.W.2d 632 (S.D. 1989).
Suit against official for defamation fails, when
his questions and remarks were related to legitimate personnel matters.
Robinson v. Egnor, 699 F.Supp. 1207 (E.D. Va. 1988).
Qualified immunity privilege fails; officer
awarded $10,000 for emotional distress, when defamed at a public meeting.
English Jr. v. Smith Jr., Hampshire County, MA, Superior Court #84-016, 21
Pers. Inj. Verdict Rev. 4 (July, 1988).
Chief could not sue town council or consultant
for publication of a report critical of his leadership. Baumblatt v. Battalia,
520 N.Y.S.2d 471 (A.D. 1987).
A city manager's untrue and defamatory
statements, leading to the termination of a fire chief, cannot form the basis
of a lawsuit; jury award of $74,000 set aside by appellate court. Town of South
Padre Island v. Jacobs, 736 S.W.2d 134 (Reh., Tex.App. 1987).
City could not be sued for libel in connection
with employee's discharge. City of Dallas v. Moreau, 718 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.App.
1986).
Jury awards $675,000 compensatory damages against
city and chief, plus $50,000 punitive against chief for injuring reputations of
subordinates. Giffin and King v. Ortega and City of Phoenix, Maricopa Co. Sup'r
Ct. (5/2/86).
No liability for truthfully answering news
media's questions concerning termination of public employee. Karr v. Townsend,
606 F.Supp. 1121 (W.D. Ark. 1985).
Sheriff not liable for defamation in suit by
ex-deputy where sheriff did not disclose reasons for termination. Karr v.
Townsend, 606 F.Supp. 1121 (W.D. Ark. 1985).
Jury awards $150,000 for emotional distress and
$100,000 punitive damages against sheriff who "defamed" a deputy;
appellate court reduced the awards. Nellis v. Miller, 477 N.Y.S.2d 72 (A.D.
1984); Keller v. City of Reno, 587 F.Supp. 21 (D. Nev. 1984).
Former employer could freely discuss applicant's
work record with prospective employer; slander suit thrown out. City of Miami
v. Wardlow, 403 So.2d 414 (Fla. 1981).
Police officer has the same, but not a greater
right, to bring a lawsuit against a citizen for reputational injuries. Mesa v.
Rodriguez, 357 So.2d 711, 1978 Fla. Lexis 4767. {N/R}
City held liable for defaming fired police chief;
damages to be awarded. Owen v. City of Independence, Missouri, 560 F.2d 925
(8th Cir. 1977).
See also: Employer References-Defamation & Other Claims; Civil Liability; Free Speech;
Wrongful Discharge.