Pratt v. Univ. of Cincinnati
2018 Ohio 2162
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2014–15 the University of Cincinnati CCM conducted a faculty search for two piano positions; Awadagin Pratt served on the search committee and was chair of the piano department.
- One finalist, Ning An, was a current student of Pratt; another finalist was the husband of faculty member Soyeon Kate Lee (who had recused herself).
- Dean Peter Landgren learned An was Pratt’s student, consulted OEO and the Provost, concluded Pratt had a conflict of interest, and declared the search failed.
- Landgren emailed piano faculty criticizing Pratt’s participation and characterizing it as a conflict of interest; Pratt sued the university for defamation and false light (later abandoning false light).
- The Court of Claims granted summary judgment to the university, finding the email was true or opinion, protected by qualified privilege, and that Landgren was immune; Pratt’s subsequent Civ.R. 60(B) motion to add deposition transcripts to the record nunc pro tunc was denied.
- Pratt appealed both the summary judgment and the denial of relief from judgment; the appellate court affirmed on both issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper on Pratt’s defamation claim | Pratt argued genuine factual disputes existed (and relied on deposition testimony not filed with the trial court) showing the email was defamatory and not privileged | Univ. argued the email concerned internal employment matters, was true or opinion, and was protected by qualified privilege; no evidence of actual malice | Court held summary judgment proper: email protected by qualified privilege; Pratt failed to show actual malice or admissible evidence creating a fact issue |
| Whether Landgren’s email conveyed false or defamatory statements | Pratt claimed the email mischaracterized his conduct and thus was false/defamatory | Univ. maintained statements were truthful, or were expressions of belief/opinion about a conflict and related to common-interest workplace matters | Court held statements were work-related opinions/factual statements subject to qualified privilege and not shown to be false with actual malice |
| Whether qualified privilege applies and can be overcome | Pratt contended privilege should not attach or could be defeated by material evidence of malice | Univ. asserted communications among supervisors/faculty about a faculty search are protected; burden shifts to Pratt to prove actual malice | Court held qualified privilege attached and Pratt presented no clear and convincing evidence of actual malice |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief to file depositions nunc pro tunc | Pratt sought leave to supplement the record with deposition transcripts so the appellate record would include evidence he cited | Univ. and court argued Civ.R. 60(B) does not permit creating a different appellate record; appellate review is limited to the record at the time of judgment | Court held denial was not an abuse of discretion; relief was not available to alter the record for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38 (Ohio Ct. App.) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc., 94 Ohio App.3d 579 (Ohio Ct. App.) (summary judgment de novo standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party's initial burden under Civ.R. 56 explained)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1997) (nonmoving party's response burden under Civ.R. 56)
- A & B–Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 73 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1995) (qualified privilege defeated only by clear and convincing evidence of actual malice)
- Evely v. Carlon Co., 4 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 1983) (qualified privilege for employer/employee communications about job performance)
- Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237 (Ohio 1975) (qualified privilege as defense to defamation)