Dickinson v. Spieldenner
2017 Ohio 667
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Steven Dickinson was a longtime Toledo Public Schools (TPS) physical-education teacher terminated after a October 21, 2013 gym incident in which he threw a dodge ball at a student and called him a "dummy."
- TPS HR officer Cheryl Spieldenner filed an ODE educator-misconduct report stating Dickinson "has engaged or may have engaged in conduct unbecoming" and was the subject of "multiple charges" and "multiple investigations."
- A November 12, 2013 on-the-record internal hearing (hearing officer Carol Thomas; investigator/assistant superintendent Diane Irving) reviewed past discipline and LCCS (Lucas County Children Services) investigations; Thomas recommended termination.
- Thomas’ report summarized LCCS materials but did not explicitly state the LCCS findings were "unsubstantiated;" those full LCCS reports, however, were in the record and later press coverage correctly noted the investigations were unsubstantiated.
- Dickinson sued TPS and the three employees for defamation and false-light invasion of privacy, alleging false statements and material omissions caused lost coaching jobs and medical harm. Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Spieldenner’s ODE statement that Dickinson faced "multiple" investigations/charges was false and defamatory | "Multiple" was misleading; omissions (not stating LCCS findings were unsubstantiated) made the report defamatory | "Multiple" means more than one; she completed the report in good faith and LCCS reports were in the record | Court held term "multiple" not false as used; no evidence of malice/fault and omissions not actionable where full reports were in evidence; no defamation |
| Whether Irving’s statements (pattern of "abusive behaviors," "plethora of charges," and that Dickinson was suspended from coaching hockey) were false | Statements were misleading or false; he only voluntarily sat out during an investigation, not suspended | Irving reasonably relied on documents and testimony indicating a match penalty and suspension; statements made in hearing context | Court held statements were not false or defamatory; evidence showed incident and suspension/limited removal from coaching activities |
| Whether Thomas’ report (omitting that some LCCS allegations were unsubstantiated and that a suspension was paid) was false or defamatory | Omission created misleading impression of substantiation and harsher discipline | Thomas included the LCCS reports in the record and acted in good faith summarizing the record for termination decision | Court held no defamation: statements/summaries not shown false, and no fault shown; privilege applies |
| Whether false-light claim survives given alleged publicization of misleading statements | Dickinson argued omissions and statements placed him in a false, offensive light to the public (lost coaching jobs/newspaper coverage) | Defendants argued same reasons as for defamation: statements true or privileged; no reckless disregard for falsity; LCCS findings were in record and no publicity showing reckless falsity | Court held false-light failed for same reasons as defamation: no falsity, no fault/malice, qualified privilege, and no publicization meeting reckless-disregard element |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Columbus, 117 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2008) (definition and elements of defamation)
- A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 73 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1995) (privilege doctrine and its contours)
- Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts., 61 Ohio App.3d 127 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (Ohio 1983) (court may decide as matter of law whether statements are defamatory)
- Connaughton v. Harte Hanks Communications, Inc., 842 F.2d 825 (6th Cir. 1988) (statements must be read in context of entire publication)
- Am. Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, Inc., 133 Ohio St.3d 366 (Ohio 2012) (contextual reading and totality of circumstances in defamation analysis)
- Pollock v. Rashid, 117 Ohio App.3d 361 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (elements of defamation articulated)
- Welling v. Weinfeld, 113 Ohio St.3d 464 (Ohio 2007) (elements of false-light invasion of privacy)
- Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237 (Ohio 1975) (qualified privilege and common-interest communications)