Clinton Giles v. Kanawha County Board of Education
17-0139
| W. Va. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Clinton Giles was principal of Capital High School; on Feb 3, 2015 he was criminally charged (misdemeanor) for allegedly failing to timely report a sexual assault at the school, suspended without pay, and on Feb 9, 2015 he resigned voluntarily.
- Board member Pete Thaw held a Feb 9 press conference and made statements criticizing his vote to hire Giles, regretting how Giles’s resignation was handled, and saying that most people would report that sort of crime immediately; media widely reported Thaw’s remarks and the underlying charge.
- The criminal charge was dismissed with prejudice on March 13, 2015; Giles then sued the Kanawha County Board of Education and Thaw (May 2016) for defamation and false light invasion of privacy.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the circuit court dismissed both claims and found Giles was at least a public figure by consequence; Giles appealed.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals applied First Amendment principles and concluded Thaw’s statements were protected opinions (not provably false factual assertions) and did not give new publicity to private facts, so neither defamation nor false light claims were viable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thaw’s statements were capable of defamatory meaning | Giles: Thaw’s remarks implied Giles failed to timely report a sexual assault and were thus defamatory and damaging to his professional reputation | Thaw: Statements expressed opinion and personal regret, not provable statements of fact; protected by the First Amendment | Held: Statements were constitutionally protected opinion, not provably false facts; not actionable for defamation |
| Whether Giles satisfied the actual malice/reckless disregard element for a public figure | Giles: Thaw spoke with at least reckless disregard and published false implications about criminal conduct | Thaw: No provable factual assertion made; therefore the New York Times/actual malice framework does not permit liability | Held: Because statements were opinions, the defamation standard requiring falsity/actual malice was not met; dismissal proper |
| Whether Thaw’s remarks gave “publicity” to private facts supporting false light claim | Giles: Statements were false, widely published, and placed him in a highly offensive false light (accused of violating the law) | Thaw: Facts about the alleged assault and charge were already widely publicized; Thaw’s comments did not disclose private facts about Giles | Held: No new publicity of private facts and the comments were opinion; false light elements not satisfied |
| Proper legal standard for false light/invasion of privacy | Giles: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E governs; Thaw acted with reckless disregard and placed Giles in false light | Defendants: Benson and West Virginia precedent apply; plaintiff failed to plead private facts or offensiveness required for false light | Held: Court applied appropriate WV standards (citing Benson); false light claim fails for lack of private fact publicity and false portrayal |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac–Buick, Inc., 194 W. Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (W. Va. 1995) (appellate review of dismissals is de novo)
- Long v. Egnor, 176 W. Va. 628, 346 S.E.2d 778 (W. Va. 1986) (First Amendment requires stricter standard on 12(b)(6) in defamation suits by public figures)
- Sprouse v. Clay Communication, Inc., 158 W. Va. 427, 211 S.E.2d 674 (W. Va. 1975) (elements of libel for public officials/figures)
- Maynard v. Daily Gazette Co., 191 W. Va. 601, 447 S.E.2d 293 (W. Va. 1994) (statements of opinion that lack provably false factual content are fully protected)
- Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 173 W. Va. 699, 320 S.E.2d 70 (W. Va. 1983) (public figure by force of consequences doctrine)
- Benson v. AJR, Inc., 215 W. Va. 324, 599 S.E.2d 747 (W. Va. 2004) (elements for invasion of privacy/false light under WV law)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard for public officials/figures in defamation law)