A Florida appeals court has dealt a blow to an academician, who sued Florida State University for defamation after the school blamed her for academic misconduct associated with several student athletes. The panel of judges reversed a lower court’s decision to deny FSU’s motion to dismiss, remanding the case for further consideration.
In 2007, FSU learned of possible academic misconduct in its Office of Athletic Academic Support Services, which provides academic assistance to student athletes. FSU began an investigation. Shortly thereafter, its chief audit officer issued a report finding there was “considerable testimonial evidence” that a “Learning Specialist” and a tutor within the OAAS “perpetuated academic dishonesty” to a degree which may have violated the academic honor policy of the university. FSU eventually made the report public. Although the report did not name the learning specialist, it soon became common knowledge that Brenda Monk was the learning specialist referenced in the report.
After the report was released, Monk resigned from her job at FSU and sued the school for defamation.
Monk alleged in her third amended complaint that FSU “improperly published to the world, the false and/or misleading and defamatory report regarding her work at the University.” She claimed the published report was defamatory because it:
• failed to reflect that she “was hired to perform the very tasks she was accused of committing as an impropriety,”
• cast her in a false light by failing to include all relevant facts, and
• was written in such a way “as to lead a reasonable reader . . . to conclude that [she] was involved in providing test answers to 23 unidentified athletes who were ultimately sanctioned” when, in fact, another person had provided the answers.
In addition, she alleged that FSU published the report “for an improper purpose even though it knew or should have known that (she) was not involved in providing test answers to the athletes in question.” The improper purpose, Monk alleged, was to avoid sanctions from the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Because Monk was the only learning specialist in FSU’s Athletic Academic Support Services Department, the media easily identified her from the report, and as a result, she was defamed, according to Monk.
FSU moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice on the ground that it enjoys absolute immunity from the defamation suit. The trial court denied the motion, finding dismissal premature at this stage in the proceedings. FSU then petitioned for a writ of certiorari to challenge that denial.
After granting the petition, the appeals court delved into the rationale for the trail trial court’s decision. Specifically, it examined whether the petitioner demonstrated “that the lower court departed from the essential requirements of law. FSU contended that the court did so depart when it refused to dismiss the defamation lawsuit on absolute immunity grounds.”
The panel agreed.
“Inasmuch as producing and publishing the report were part of its official duties, FSU, an executive branch entity, see section 20.155, Florida Statutes, enjoys absolute immunity from a defamation suit seeking damages for those acts. The trial court therefore departed from the essential requirements of law by denying dismissal of Ms. Monk’s lawsuit.”
Florida State University Board of Trustees v. Brenda Monk; Ct. App. Fla., First Dist.; CASE NO. 1D11-0870, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12257; 8/4/11.
Attorneys of Record: (for petitioner) Brian C. Keri, Tallahassee. (for respondent)
Brant Hargrove, Tallahassee.
The opinion can be viewed at http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2011/08-04-2011/11-0870.pdf.
