SALEM, Ore. (Legal Newsline) - A piano tuner who was accused by a coworker of being drunk can sue the school district that employed him for defamation, after the Oregon Supreme Court refuted a 1976 decision that some interpreted to mean all public employees were shielded from such claims.
Thomas Lowell sued three employees of the Medford School District after one of them reported to her supervisor that she smelled alcohol on his breath and he appeared intoxicated while providing production assistance for a concert. It “was not the first time,” the fellow worker said. The supervisor sent emails to several other district employees saying the tuner may have violated the terms of his contract with the school district.
A trial court substituted the school district for the named employees and then dismissed the case, citing the Oregon Supreme Court’s 1976 decision in Shearer v. Lambert, which established an absolute privilege against defamation suits in a case involving a university department head. An appeals court upheld the dismissal, but the Supreme Court reversed, saying in a July 28 opinion Shearer didn’t extend the privilege to public employees below the level of “officers.”
The court began by tracing the history of defamation law as applied to public officials. A prohibition against lawsuits over speeches on the floor of the British Parliament existed at least since 1512, the court observed, and U.S. courts extended the privilege to certain high government officials in the 19th century. Courts gradually expanded the privilege, under the theory defamation lawsuits would “inhibit courageous and independent official action” and the public interest outweighed the interests of private citizens who claimed they were damaged by official comments.
As with other government privileges against suit, it doesn’t extend to so-called “ministerial” actions, although the Supreme Court said there was no clear definition of the line between actions requiring official judgment and ministerial duties, or basically following rules from above.
In 1959, the Oregon Supreme Court held that complaints sent to the state bar were protected by a “quasi-judicial” privilege and in 1975 to a member of the port commission involved in legislative proceedings. The court seemingly expanded it to all public employees with Shearer in 1976, although with its latest ruling the justices said that impression was wrong.
“We reject defendant’s argument that Shearer compels us to decide that the absolute privilege defense to a defamation claim extends to all public employees, including defendant’s employees here, as long as they act within the course and scope of their employment,” the court concluded.
“Protecting public employees from harassment is not the policy end for which the absolute privilege is designed,” the court said. “Protecting public employees, is, instead, a means to ensure good governance by fearless officials.”
The case was remanded for further proceedings. The school district can still defend itself by claiming a qualified privilege, or that its employees acted within the existing law.