School board president not entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly defamatory statements about district employee

Law Reporter, Dec 2001

School board president not entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly defamatory statements about district employee.

Wood v. Battle Ground Sch. =Dist., 27 P.3d 1208 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

A Washington appellate court held that a school board president was not entitled to absolute immunity for making allegedly defamatory statements about a school district employee.

Here, Wood worked as a communications coordinator for a school district. After a school board election, the new board president allegedly stated in a newspaper article that Wood's performance was unsatisfactory. Her employment contract was not renewed. Wood sued the president, and others, alleging defamation. A trial court granted defendants summary judgment.

Reversing, the appellate court rejected the president's argument that he has absolute immunity from liability for defamatory statements. Because an absolute privilege absolves a defendant of all liability for defamation, it is usually limited to cases where the public service and administration of justice require complete immunity. Consequently, a court will not extend complete immunity to an official absent a compelling public policy justification. Here, there is no such justification for bestowing an absolute privilege on a school board president, the court found.

As an inferior state officer, the president is only entitled to a qualified privilege, the court said. Thus, the president will enjoy the privilege only if he makes a defamatory statement that is required or permitted in the performance of official duties. A qualified privilege can be lost, however, if abused. To prove abuse, a plaintiff must show the official knew the statement was false or acted with actual malice in making it. Here, plaintiff has shown that the president acted with actual malice when he made his statement to the newspaper. Plaintiffs supervisors, when told by the president to find a way to get rid of plaintiff, reported to him that there was no basis for termination. Additionally, plaintiff's performance evaluations were consistently strong. The president also failed to recall any significant instance where plaintiff's performance was inadequate, the court said. Because this evidence tends to show actual malice, the court explained, plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial for her claim.

Moreover, the court found that the trial court erred in holding there was no issue of material fact as to whether the president's statement was false. His statement implied there were provable facts to support his conclusion that plaintiff's job performance was unsatisfactory. In addition, it suggested that her performance was the basis for the failure to renew her contract, the court said. Moreover, plaintiff provided sufficient evidence contradicting the president's evidence regarding the quality of her work. Plaintiff presented a performance evaluation and favorable statements from her supervisors and coworkers. Thus, there is an issue as to whether the president's statements were false, the court concluded.

Accordingly, the court remanded for trial.

Plaintiffs Counsel

Bruce Colven, Vancouver, Wash.