Michael Harlow v. State of Minnesota Department of Human Services
A14-1342
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2016Background
- Dr. Michael Harlow, a psychiatrist at Minnesota Security Hospital (MSH), was terminated after a November 15, 2011 patient-incident; DHS officials (Ann Barry and MSH administrator David Proffitt) publicly explained the reasons for his discharge.
- Harlow sued the State/DHS, Barry, and Proffitt for defamation and MGDPA violations; early proceedings dismissed the MGDPA claims and Barry’s defamation claim on absolute-privilege grounds.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the MGDPA claims and Barry’s absolute-privilege protection but reversed as to Proffitt and remanded to decide whether his statements are protected by qualified privilege.
- The remaining disputed statements: (1) Proffitt’s comments to Minnesota Public Radio about the patient’s treatment and that he fired Harlow based on a committee recommendation; (2) a DHS e-mail by Proffitt stating Harlow was separated for violating a patient’s rights.
- The court analyzed qualified privilege elements: proper occasion, proper motive, reasonable/probable cause, and whether actual malice (privilege abuse) exists, finding genuine fact disputes precluding summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proffitt’s statements were made on a proper occasion (qualifies for conditional privilege) | Harlow: unclear whether speaking to press/emailing was within Proffitt’s official duties and broad audience undermines occasion | Proffitt: statements were made on behalf of MSH about a matter of public interest; no job-duty requirement | Court: Proper occasion likely present for both media and employee communications; audience breadth goes to abuse/malice, not occasion |
| Whether Proffitt acted with a proper motive | Harlow: Proffitt may have used Harlow as a scapegoat to deflect criticism after negative press and internal issues | Proffitt: no direct evidence of improper motive; plaintiff’s claims speculative | Held: Jury question exists; circumstantial evidence (timing, negative press, internal problems) permits inference of improper motive |
| Whether Proffitt had reasonable or probable cause for his statements | Harlow: inconsistent reasons between officials and limited investigation show lack of reasonable cause | Proffitt: could reasonably rely on completed employment/licensing investigations and his knowledge as administrator | Held: Fact issue exists whether Proffitt conducted sufficient inquiry before speaking; reasonable-cause unresolved on summary judgment |
| Whether Proffitt acted with actual malice, defeating qualified privilege | Harlow: language may be exaggerated, self-serving, broad dissemination, and timed to rebut negative press show malice | Proffitt: statements were factual/defensive with no intent to injure | Held: Genuine disputes of material fact on malice (language, extent of publication, timing) preclude summary judgment; qualified privilege not resolved as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Bol v. Cole, 561 N.W.2d 143 (Minn. 1997) (qualified privilege shields some defamatory statements)
- Zutz v. Nelson, 788 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 2010) (policy basis for privileges balancing public interest and reputational harm)
- Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252 (Minn. 1980) (elements of qualified privilege: proper occasion, motive, reasonable cause)
- Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 461 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 1990) (qualified-privilege determinations may be legal questions absent factual disputes)
- Rudebeck v. Paulson, 612 N.W.2d 450 (Minn. App. 2000) (assessing reasonable-cause inquiry and adequacy of investigation)
- Buchanan v. Minnesota State Dep’t of Health, 573 N.W.2d 733 (Minn. App. 1998) (evidence suggesting malice: intrinsic/extrinsic factors like tone and breadth of publication)
- McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 235 N.W.2d 371 (Minn. 1975) (definition of actual malice as ill will or wanton intent to injure)