A federal judge from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has dismissed the defamation and invasion of privacy claims brought by a coach, who alleged that she was treated unfairly and ultimately terminated because she was an African-American female.
Erin White, the plaintiff, began working as a physical education teacher and coach at the Baldwin School, a private, all-girls school, in 2003.
On March 4, 2011, White was informed by Deborah Surgi, Baldwin’s Director of Athletics and head of the physical education department, and Joanne Brasberger, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Human Resources, that her contract was not being renewed for 2011-12 as a result of cuts in the athletic department. White claimed that Baldwin retained less qualified Caucasian faculty members in the athletic department. White’s teaching responsibilities were assumed by a Caucasian female with less seniority than White, and her coaching duties were assigned to three Caucasian males.
“Both before and after the March 4, 2011 termination meeting, Surgi and England embarked on a needless quest to harass and micromanage White in a way which was not only uncalled for, but which had never been imposed on any Caucasian employee in the Athletic Department,” according to the complaint, White further alleged that she was the lowest-paid teacher in the athletic department and, contrary to Baldwin’s policy, she was not awarded a raise once she completed her Master’s Degree in December of 2009.
The friction between the parties intensified when White informed her team that she would not be returning and failed to tell the students “the truth, i.e., that the Athletic Department was cutting back (for financial reasons),” according to the defendants. In the wake of that development, White was fired immediately.
White ultimately sued, alleging six counts — Title VII and PHRA discrimination and retaliation, defamation, and false light invasion of privacy.
Baldwin sought to dismiss the defamation and the false light invasion of privacy claims brought by White.
The court looked first at the defamation claim and what it takes to succeed under Pennsylvania law: “a plaintiff must establish: (1) the defamatory character of the communication; (2) publication by the defendant; (3) its application to the plaintiff; (4) understanding by the recipient of its defamatory meaning; (5) understanding by the recipient of the communication as intended to be applied to the plaintiff; (6) special harm to the plaintiff; and (7) abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a).”
White maintained that during a May 13, 2011 meeting in which she was fired, she was falsely accused of failing to tell her students the true reason she was being let go, and was accused of upsetting her students and “sending them into a ‘frenzy.’”
White further alleges that a second grade teacher learned about the accusations made during this May 13, 2011 meeting and that the second grade teacher told White that she had heard that “you upset kids and that’s why they let you go.”
The court deemed this “far too speculative a reed to hang a defamation charge upon. White makes no allegations that the teacher who learned of her termination told her the allegedly defamatory statement came from a Baldwin employee and the Court will not turn gossip into a charge of defamation.
Furthermore, “the Court does not consider the statement that White upset her students capable of defamatory meaning in this context. White’s Amended Complaint notes that news of her departure caused her students to become ‘emotional at the thought of losing such a cherished teacher and coach.’ The alleged defamatory statements do not attribute any misconduct to White or suggest that she committed a crime or that she was not competent to perform her job. The statement at issue—regardless of who uttered it—is that White upset her students. But White agrees that the fact that her contract was not renewed had already cast a pall over her students. White has failed to state a claim for defamation.”
Next, the court turned to her claim that the defendants “falsely and maliciously branded” her as a teacher and coach “who intentionally upset children and failed to tell them the truth, indicating she was not suitable for her chosen profession.”
The claim “is a rehash of the plaintiff’s defamation claim dressed in false light clothing,” wrote the court. “The statement that White upset her students is not of such a character that a reasonable person would take ‘serious offense.’ Furthermore, the amended complaint includes no allegations that any representations were made to the public at large. The comments upon which White’s invasion of privacy claim rests were made to three or four individuals. This falls short of the publicity requirement this tort mandates. See Puchalski v. Sch. Dist. of Springfield, 161 F. Supp. 2d 395, 411 (E.D. Pa. 2001).”
Erin M. White v. The Baldwin School, et al.; E.D. Pa.; CIVIL ACTION No. 12-4111, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149890; 10/17/12
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Mark A. Sereni, Lead Attorney, Larissa Kosarych, Diorio & Sereni, LLP, Media, PA; Lisanne L. Mikula, Diorio Sereni, Media, PA. (for defendant) Joseph L. Turchi, Lead Attorney, Michele L. Weckerly, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP, Philadelphia, PA.
