Haegert v. McMullan
953 N.E.2d 1223
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Haegert, a tenured Evansville English professor, sues McMullan, the department chair, for defamation, tortious interference, and IIED after his termination.
- McMullan, as English Department Chair, supervised Haegert's performance and oversaw student advising coordination.
- In 2004, during an August incident, McMullan alleges Haegert said “Hi, Sweetie” and touched her chin/neck; Haegert alleges a friendly greeting and joke.
- University formal harassment complaint followed; an investigation ensued, involving Graban (AAO) and a Review Committee, FPAC, FAC, and ultimately University Board actions terminating Haegert.
- Haegert’s May 2005 complaint against McMullan proceeded to summary judgment; court granted McMullan summary judgment on all counts.
- Court analyzes defamation, tortious interference, and IIED claims under Indiana law, reviewing for genuine issues of material fact and appropriate justifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation requires a specific defamatory statement | Haegert contends McMullan’s statements were false and damaging. | McMullan’s statements and anecdotal file were privileged and not actionable. | Defamation summary judgment upheld; statements not specifically identified and privilege applies. |
| Tortious interference requires third-party involvement | McMullan as third party interfered with Haegert's contract. | McMullan acted as University agent within scope; not a third party; actions justified. | Summary judgment affirmed; either McMullan not liable as agent or actions justified. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme conduct | McMullan's conduct was extreme and outrageous toward Haegert. | No evidence of intent to harm; actions within official duties and policy enforcement. | Summary judgment affirmed; conduct not shown as extreme and outrageous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartman v. Keri, 883 N.E.2d 774 (Ind.2008) (anti-harassment complaints protected by absolute privilege)
- Bals v. Verduzco, 600 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind.1992) (qualified privilege for intracompany communications balanced against abuse)
- Chambers v. American Trans Air, Inc., 577 N.E.2d 612 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (qualified privilege scope applied to communications with duty/interest)
- Winkler v. V.G. Reed & Sons, Inc., 638 N.E.2d 1228 (Ind.1994) ( Restatement-informed factors for justified interference)
- Levee v. Beeching, 729 N.E.2d 215 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (agency/third-party analysis in tortious interference; scope matters)
- Curry v. Whitaker, 943 N.E.2d 354 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (IIED requires extreme conduct; ultimate standard is legal determination)