McLean v. Robertson, 2016 Ohio 2953

Vera McLean was Elmwood Place clerk of courts (2000–2003; rehired 2008) and had access to the RCIC database, access barred to felons. She denied any felony conviction and said a former felony charge had been reduced to an expunged misdemeanor.
In 2003 McLean resigned after the mayor raised concerns that she had a felony conviction; documents in her file referenced past convictions and a 2002 police memo stating she was not allowed RCIC access.
Jerald Robertson became mayor in October 2014, was concerned about McLean’s performance, and learned of prior reports alleging a felony conviction.
In December 2014 Robertson shared a 2002 police letter and other file documents and discussed the alleged felony conviction with village officials while they considered personnel changes; he also asked the police chief to verify records.
McLean sued Robertson for defamation claiming he falsely published that she had a felony record; the trial court granted summary judgment for Robertson and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Robertson’s statements that McLean had a felony record were actionable defamation	McLean: Robertson published a false, defamatory statement (per se) that injured her reputation and did not need to prove malice	Robertson: Statements concerned public employment qualifications and were made to officials with a legitimate public interest; privileged	Court: Statements fell within the public-interest qualified privilege; defendant entitled to summary judgment
Whether McLean presented clear and convincing evidence of actual malice to defeat the qualified privilege	McLean: Robertson told council about the felony after being told police records showed no felony; she argued he knew or recklessly disregarded falsity	Robertson: He reviewed documents indicating past convictions, sought verification from police and a former mayor, and lacked knowledge of an expungement’s outcome; no evidence of spite, knowledge of falsity, or reckless doubt	Court: No clear-and-convincing evidence of actual malice; mere negligence or failure to investigate insufficient; privilege stands

Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standards for de novo review of summary judgment)
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment requirements)
A & B–Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 73 Ohio St.3d 1 (qualified-privilege elements; actual malice standard)
Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237 (prima facie defamation proof and defenses)
Jacobs v. Frank, 60 Ohio St.3d 111 (actual malice defined for qualified privilege context)
St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (reckless disregard requires serious doubts about truth)
Williams v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 162 Ohio App.3d 596 (discussion of defamation per se and privileges)