Virginia Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

The tort of defamation is widely misunderstood. Social media outlets like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, which allow easy publication and dissemination of information to a wide audience, are leading to a rise in defamation lawsuits in Virginia and around the country. To be insulted by another, especially when it happens in a public forum, can be hurtful and embarrassing. Whether the insult constitutes actionable defamation under Virginia law, however, can present some complicated issues, often implicating the United States Constitution. Relevant considerations for any lawyer examining a defamation claim include the type and context of the speech, the identity of the speaker, the identity of the plaintiff, and the existence of qualified immunity or other defenses.

In Virginia, defamation includes both libel (written defamation) and slander (spoken defamation). There is no need for clever mnemonic devices to distinguish libel from slander, because Virginia law makes no meaningful distinction between the two and speaks only of the merged tort of defamation. The essence of any defamation claim is that a defendant published a false factual statement that concerns and harms the plaintiff or the plaintiff's reputation. While it is common to recite that "truth is a defense," that is not technically true, as falsity is a required element of the plaintiff's proof.

Proof of several elements is required. The defendant must know that the statement was false or must have lacked a reasonable basis for believing it to be true. Defamatory words that cause prejudice to a person in her profession are actionable as defamation "per se," meaning that it is not necessary to prove actual injury to reputation. Expressions of opinion, however, are constitutionally protected as free speech. Therefore, mere statements of opinion cannot form the basis of a defamation lawsuit.

The "publication" requirement means that the remarks were heard by a third party who understood the remarks as referring to the plaintiff in a defamatory sense. This is a fairly easy standard to meet (assuming a defamatory statement), as even accidental publication will suffice.

The Constitution plays two parts in the defamation analysis. First, it gives higher protection to those who speak on matters of public concern or about public figures. When an ordinary person brings a defamation claim that concerns a statement of no public concern, he only needs to prove the requisite elements by a preponderance of the evidence. When the plaintiff is a public figure (e.g., a celebrity or public officeholder), or when the statement at issue was one of public concern, then the bar is raised. The plaintiff would then need to prove, by "clear and convincing" evidence, that the defendant acted with actual malice. A defendant acted with actual malice if he knew the statement to be false or recklessly failed to verify the claim. "Clear and convincing" evidence is difficult to define but is a higher level of proof than a mere "preponderance." (You can think of it as requiring 75% certainty rather than 51% certainty, though that is not the legal definition).

The second constitutional requirement is that punitive damages may only be awarded upon the same clear and convincing finding of actual malice regardless of who the plaintiff is or if the statement was one of public concern.

The law of libel and slander is far too complicated to discuss in this small space. Consult an attorney if you have been the subject of defamatory speech, especially if your business or profession is being harmed as a result. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, a corresponding legal requirement exists to ensure that citizens be held responsible for abuse of that right.

Getting fired or laid off is hard enough without your boss trashing your reputation to your co-workers. I receive many calls from prospective clients interested in pursuing their former employer for defamation. Virginia employers, however, have a lot of leeway in what they can say about an employee being considered for termination before they will be liable for slander or libel. Virginia recognizes a qualified privilege against defamation claims where statements by an employer are made in connection with discharging that employee. To overcome that privilege, a plaintiff must prove common law malice by clear and convincing evidence.

Consider the recent Hanover County case of Koegler v. Green, decided on September 1, 2009. Carl Koegler sued his former employer, the Richmond-East Moose Lodge, as well as several of his former co-workers and employers, for defamation. The defendants demurred (i.e., moved to dismiss the case), citing the qualified privilege, and the court agreed with them and dismissed the case. The court emphasized that defamation claims against employers in Virginia will not be permitted to go forward absent strong evidence of malice.

The facts, according to the allegations in the complaint, were as follows: Mr. Koegler was employed by the Lodge in various positions over the years. An audit conducted by the international parent company resulted in Mr. Koegler's termination in 2008. Some of his former coworkers and managers talked to other employees about the firing. The acting Governor of the Lodge, for example, held a staff meeting and discussed what had been said in board meetings about Mr. Koegler and that Mr. Koegler had been suspended for stealing money. Another officer of the Lodge sent emails describing Mr Koegler as having "questionable character." Mr. Koegler sued for defamation and harm to his reputation.

The court held that, to state a claim for defamation, the plaintiff would have to allege sufficient facts to enable a reasonable jury to find clear and convincing evidence of "common law malice," defined as "some sinister or corrupt motive such as hatred, revenge, personal spite, ill will, or desire to injure the plaintiff; or what, as a matter of law is equivalent to malice, that the communication was made with such gross indifference and recklessness as to amount to a wanton or willful disregard of the rights of the plaintiff." In the end, the court concluded that Mr. Kroegler had not presented a case sufficient to enable a reasonably jury to find clear and convincing evidence of malice, and dismissed the case.

Worried about liability for statements made by others in an online forum hosted by your website? Provided you don't take an active role in editing the content posted by others, you shouldn't have to worry about defamation liability. The Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), found at 47 U.S.C. § 230, provides that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." It further provides that "No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

In the still-pending case of Cornelius v. DeLuca, filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, the plaintiffs, sellers of a dietary supplement called "Syntrax," sued various competitors for libel and tortious interference with business expectancies, and also sued the owners of bodybuilding.com--a website containing a forum for Internet discussion by the public--for supposedly assisting the other defendants post false and defamatory statements to the forum. In essence, the plaintiffs tried to get around the CDA by claiming the host of the forum wasn't a mere "provider" but an active participant in a conspiracy to post libelous, defamatory statements concerning the plaintiff's product. The court rejected the argument and dismissed the conspiracy count.

Under the CDA, while content providers cannot be held liable for the statements of others, they can be held liable for their own statements (which is why providers need to be careful not to edit others' statements, thereby arguably adopting the statement as their own). It is undoubtedly for this reason that the plaintiffs, realizing full well that the owners of bodybuilding.com did not make the statements at issue themselves, alleged that the owners conspired with the actual authors to allow the statements to be posted.

What the plaintiffs failed to do is present actual facts demonstrating the existence of a conspiracy. (To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege more than a mere formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action; he must allege facts that, if proven, would support the existence of the claimed cause of action.) The complaint at issue alleged no facts regarding the website owners' conduct other than the fact that they operated the message board, thereby "allowing" the allegedly defamatory statements to be published. No details were alleged concerning the details of the supposed conspiracy. The court held that, in light of the CDA, this was not enough.

Most Virginia employers these days are careful to avoid using defamatory language when terminating employees.  They know that defamation actions (i.e., lawsuits alleging libel and/or slander) are best avoided by responding to inquiries from other employers by identifying an ex-employee's dates of employment and position held, but little else.  Although "truth is a defense" (statements about an employee will not be defamatory if they are true) and an employer usually has a qualified privilege to make statements that arise out of an employment relationship, no employer wants to get sued by a disgruntled ex-employee and employment lawyers are constantly thinking up new theories of employer liability.

One recent theory that has gained a following in certain states is based on the so-called "compelled self-publication" doctrine.  Virginia, however, is not one of those states, according to a memorandum opinion issued on May 6, 2009, by a federal court sitting in Richmond.

Here's how the theory works.  First, to bring a claim for defamation in Virginia as well as in most other states, a plaintiff must allege not only a defamatory statement made with the requisite intent, but that the statement was "published" (i.e., made) by the defendant to a third party.  The idea behind "compelled self-publication" is that even if a careful employer does not publish the reasons for an employee's termination to a third party, merely having a false, pretextual justification for the termination in the employee's personnel file should make the employer liable for defamation because it somehow compels the discharged employee to tell prospective employers the reasons he or she was fired.  

In Wynn v. Wachovia Bank, the Eastern District of Virginia held that Virginia law does not recognize such a theory.  Wynn, whom Wachovia had terminated, sued Wachovia for defamation on the ground it stated her termination was for "job abandonment" and that she had taken unauthorized paid time off, reasons she claimed were false.  Wynn did not claim that Wachovia published these statements to a third party; rather, she claimed the reasons offered for her termination put her "in the untenable position of having to defame herself when seeking employment elsewhere."  The court held flatly that regardless of whether Wachovia "forced" the plaintiff to defame herself, Wachovia could not be held liable for defamation without the requisite publication to a third party.  

A couple from Culpeper, Virginia, has sued the Culpeper Police Department for alleged inappropriate behavior upon discovering sexually explicit photographs on a cell phone.  According to the lawsuit, the police arrested Nathan Newhard in March 2008 for DUI and possession of a firearm, and confiscated his cell phone.  Upon inspecting the phone, a town police officer discovered sexually explicit photographs of his girlfriend.  The officer then used the police radio system to announce the availability of the pictures to any interested police officer and several officers viewed the photographs.  Shortly thereafter, Mr. Newhard claims, the police notified his employer, the County of Culpeper School System, that Mr. Newhard had nude photos on his cell phone.  The school told him he would not be recommended for another term, and he resigned.  

Mr. Newhard describes the litigation as a case brought to remedy "egregious and unconscionable violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and asserts counts for "deliberate indifference," "right to privacy," "outrageous conduct," defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and failure to train.

It will be interesting to see which claims stick.  I stongly doubt the alleged facts state a valid claim for defamation (which requires a showing of falsity) or intentional infliction of emotional distress (which generally requires more extreme conduct than that alleged, as well as more severe emotional injuries).  A claim that appears to be missing is tortious interference with contractual relations.  If what Mr. Newhard is claiming is true, and a police officer showed a nude picture of his girlfriend to his employer for the purpose of getting him fired, that is the sort of behavior that would likely support a tortious interference claim.

With the increasing popularity of "sexting" (the practice of attaching sexually explicit photos in text messages sent between phones) and the debate surrounding its legality, it will also be interesting to see whether the alleged behavior by the Culpeper Police Department amounts to a deprivation of contstitutional rights as alleged in the Complaint.  More about sexting in the clip below.