Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Employee?s placement on involuntary administrative leave alleged to constitute defamation and infliction of emotional distress

Employee?s placement on involuntary administrative leave alleged to constitute defamation and infliction of emotional distress
Clark v Schuylerville Cent. School Dist., 2010 NY Slip Op 04902, Decided on June 10, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department

Linda Clark, a teacher at Schuylerville Central School District, was placed on administrative leave after showing the R-rated movie Macbeth to her 10th grade class ?in violation of the [d]istrict's policy and procedures."].

Clark sued the School District and others, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Here the Appellate Division considered certain allegations made by Clark in the third of three appeals.

In the previous appeal the court said that the only surviving claim concerned Clark?s ?cause of action for defamation? based on statements that Clark alleged were made by the principal of Schuylerville Junior/Senior High School, Thomas S. Martin. Clark had appealed a Supreme Court ruling that denied her motion to compel the District and Honeywell to give additional deposition testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court?s ruling.*

In this, the third appeal, Clark asked the Appellate Division to vacate a Supreme Court order that granted the school district?s motion dismissing Clark's sole remaining cause of action for defamation, and denied Clark's motion for a default judgment based upon the alleged spoliation of evidence.** The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court?s rulings.

The Appellate Division explained that Clark?s defamation claim was based upon her assertion that Martin told the District's attorney that Clark had shown an "R" rated film to students in violation of the District's policies and procedures.

Martin, however, denied ever having made the statement alleged in the complaint and Clark, said the Appellate Division, failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that regard.

Notwithstanding Martin?s denial, however, the Appellate Division noted that even had Martin made such a statement, Clark conceded that in the absence of such statements having been made with malice, the doctrine of ?qualified privilege? would have applied as ?the communication occurred between persons with a common interest in the subject matter.?***

As to Clark?s claim that the statements she alleged had been made by Martin constituted ?malice,? the Appellate Division commented that malice includes spite, ill will, knowledge that a statement is probably false or a reckless disregard for its falsity, and that "spite or ill will refers not to speaker?s general feelings about the individual, but to the speaker's motivation for making the defamatory statements"

On this issue, the court concluded that Clark ?failed to present any competent evidence that the alleged statement was ?made with an intent to harm [her,] . . . with a reckless disregard for [its] truth, . . . [or] solely because [Martin] disliked [her],? thus she failed to demonstrate an issue of fact regarding the existence of malice sufficient to defeat the qualified privilege.

As to Clark?s seeking sanctions on based on her allegations of ?spoilage of evidence,? the Appellate Division decided that the record did not support a conclusion that Martin improperly destroyed documents related to this action. Further, said the court, Clark?s ?vague and speculative allegations regarding prejudice arising from the alleged destruction of documents do not support a claim of spoliation.?

* Clark v Schuylerville Cent. School District, 57 AD3d 1145. The Appellate Division sustained a Supreme Court ruling that denied Clark?s motion to compel District officials and Honeywell, the District?s attorney, to give additional deposition testimony. The court said that the District its burden of establishing that the attorney-client privilege attached as the school officials were seeking legal advice from their attorney relating to the management of the District's teaching staff, and that their conversations with their attorney were ?confidential and private."

** ?Spoliation of evidence? refers to the intentional or negligent withholding, or destruction of relevant evidence in a legal proceeding.

*** Under certain conditions even a false statement made by a superior concerning an employee may subject to what is termed a "qualified privilege" if the statement was made without malice in the course of a public officer's or employee's performance of his or her official duties. In such cases the employer may defend itself on the basis of "good faith" notwithstanding the fact that the statement is later shown to be false. In any event, the privilege is lost in the event the speaker or the writer in the event the objected to material is given to an ?unprivileged person? or to both privileged and unprivileged persons. [See, generally, Herlihy v Metropolitan Museum of Art, 214 A.D.2d 250.]

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_04902.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on June 11, 2010 (boomark / email).