Articles

That's a Lie! The Law of Slander

Let’s say that you are the parent of a fourteen-year-old daughter who attends a local middle school. One day, while describing her school activities, she casually mentions that one of her male teachers put his arm around her shoulders during a private conference in his classroom after school. You ask her more about this encounter, and your daughter seems to think nothing of it.

As you mull it over for the next couple of days, however, you develop some concerns. What if your daughter is not telling you the whole story? What if this teacher is just starting a pattern of conduct with your daughter? What if he has done this with other girls in his class? On the other hand, shouldn’t you give him the benefit of a doubt? What if he is entirely innocent of any wrongful intentions?

You decide to file a complaint with the school district, and to ask for an investigation. Before you make the call, however, you discuss the matter with a couple of close friends. They raise an interesting point. If you are wrong, can you be sued by the teacher for slander?

You think about this some more, but finally decide to file the complaint. The teacher gets upset, but cooperates. During the investigation by the school district, three other students or former students allege that the teacher sexually harassed them, under circumstances similar to what happened to your daughter. It becomes clear to you that either the teacher is guilty of sexual harassment, or at the very least is causing his students to mistrust his intentions.

The school district’s investigation concludes that the teacher is guilty of sexual harassment, and terminates his employment. The local newspaper interviews you, the other parents, the teacher and school officials. The teacher gets a lawyer, who writes everyone a nasty letter threatening a lawsuit for slander if the paper publishes the story. The paper publishes the entire story, including a quote from you. The teacher then sues the paper and the school district for slander, defamation, and invasion of privacy.

When you hear about it, your heart drops at the thought that you will probably be subpoenaed as a witness in this mess. The next day, you get some good news and some bad news. The good news: you won’t be subpoenaed as a witness. The bad news: you will be subpoenaed as a defendant. One of your friends is kind enough to call you to let you know that she thinks you are an idiot.

You’re not.

First of all, let’s define some basic terms. Defamation is a statement which harms another person’s reputation. It can be true or false, written or oral. Slander is an oral statement which is both defamatory and false. Libel is a written statement which is both defamatory and false.

In order to be successfully sued for defamation, the teacher in our case above must prove (1) falsity, (2) lack of privilege, (3) fault, and (4) damages. He may be able to prove falsity, if a jury decides that his actions were in fact entirely innocent after hearing testimony from him and the girls who accused him. He could probably prove damages, which would be measured by his economic loss from being fired, and his emotional pain and suffering.

He would probably have a lot of trouble proving lack of privilege and fault. "Privilege" in this case means that the law sometimes allows statements to be made, even if they are later proved to be false, and even if they are harmful. Otherwise, no one would ever want to ask for an investigation of suspicious circumstances. Parents should not be afraid to voice their concern about the conduct of teachers, even when they do not have all of the facts. If they ask for an investigation of questionable conduct, they should not have to worry about being sued, unless they act out of ill will or maliciousness.

How about the issue of "fault?" If you bad-mouth your neighbor, you might be liable for damages if you were simply negligent. For example, if you saw someone drunk at the mall who looked like your next door neighbor, and you broadcast it to everyone in your neighborhood, you could be sued for damages if you simply made a negligent mistake. On the other hand, if you bad-mouth a "public figure" (like a rock star) or "public official" (like You Know Who)," you cannot be successfully sued unless you are guilty of "actual malice." You can now breath a sigh of relief for all those barbs about our Great Leader.

In a case similar to that of the teacher described above, the state Court of Appeals recently held that the teacher could not sue for defamation, because teachers are public figures, and there was no proof that anyone made statements maliciously – they just wanted an investigation into the teacher’s conduct. The teacher did clear himself of the charges, and got reinstated (but with a 30-day suspension without pay). The teacher’s claim of negligent investigation of the charges was thrown out because there is no such lawsuit allowed in Washington State. However, the Court of Appeals did say that the teacher should be allowed to have a jury trial on the question of whether the school district’s investigation wrongfully invaded his privacy.