Bahen v. Diocese of Steubenville
2013 Ohio 2168
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Bahen, a teacher and head football coach, was publicly accused of abuse; Diocese stated there was a semblance of truth and placed him on paid leave.
- Herald Star published a Jan 4, 2011 article with Bahen's bio and the Diocesan Decree on Child Protection; included a critical statement from Judy Jones.
- Bahen sued numerous media defendants and the Diocese on defamation and emotional distress theories based on the press materials.
- Trial court dismissed the defamation claim under a neutral reportage privilege, and derivative distress claims followed suit.
- Bahen appealed, arguing the privilege is not adopted in Ohio and the article went beyond mere recitation of the press release.
- Court reverses: Ohio has not adopted neutral reportage; dismissal on that basis was error; remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the neutral reportage privilege applicable in Ohio? | Bahen asserts the privilege is not recognized in Ohio. | Newspaper defendants rely on the privilege as a complete defense. | Neutral reportage not recognized; dismissal reversed. |
| Does the amended complaint state a defamation claim? | Bahen contends the article defamed him beyond a mere republish. | Publication of the Diocese’s press release, accurately reported, cannot be false. | Defamation claim preserved for adjudication; not properly resolved on privilege. |
| Are derivative claims (negligent/intentional infliction) properly dismissed? | Derivative claims depend on defamation viability. | Dismissal already resolved the related claims. | Derivatives reversed along with defamation; remand for proceedings. |
| Should Ohio apply Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards? | Ohio should apply its own notice-pleading standard. | Twombly/Iqbal standards apply, narrowing complaints. | Ohio pleading standard applies; Twombly/Iqbal not adopted in Ohio. |
| What is the controlling authority on pleading standards and privileges? | Bahen relies on Ohio Supreme Court precedent rejecting neutral reportage. | Defense relies on federal pleading standards for dismissal. | Court refuses to adopt Twombly/Iqbal; rejects neutral reportage; remands. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Election Contest of Democratic Primary Held May 4, 1999 for Clerk, Youngstown Municipal Court, 87 Ohio St.3d 118 (1999) (notice pleading standard in Ohio)
- Young v. Morning Journal, 76 Ohio St.3d 627 (1996) (Ohio Supreme Court declined neutral reportage)
- April v. Reflector-Herald, Inc., 46 Ohio App.3d 95 (1988) (neutral reportage lineage in Ohio)
- Edwards v. Natl. Audubon Soc., Inc., 556 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1977) (neutral reportage concept cited by federal courts)
- Crestmont Cleveland Partnership v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 139 Ohio App.3d 928 (2000) (management of undecided issues on appeal)
- Sacksteder v. Senney, 2012-Ohio-4452 (2012) (Ohio appellate authority on pleading/privilege)