Rosen v. American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Inc.
41 A.3d 1250
D.C.2012Background
- Rosen, longtime AIPAC employee, was fired in March 2005 after a DOJ investigation into whether he received classified information.
- AIPAC publicly stated in April 2005 that Rosen's behavior did not comport with the standards AIPAC expects of its employees; Dorton spoke for AIPAC.
- A 2008 New York Times article repeated that AIPAC still held that view, stating Rosen's conduct in 2005 did not comport with AIPAC standards.
- The trial court dismissed most claims as time-barred and immunity-based, leaving only the 2008 statement as potentially defamatory; summary judgment was granted in favor of AIPAC and Dorton.
- The DC Court of Appeals held the 2008 statement was not provably false because AIPAC’s “standards” for employee conduct were unwritten and amorphous, thus not capable of objective verification.
- The court affirmed, ruling no genuine issue of material fact remained and AIPAC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2008 statement was provably false | Rosen contends the 2008 statement was a false, defamatory assertion. | AIPAC argues the statement rests on unwritten, subjective standards not capable of provable falsity. | Not provably false; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether unwritten 'standards' can grounds for falsehood | Unwritten standards could be proven false at trial. | Unwritten, assumed standards are too amorphous for objective verification. | Unwritten standards are not subject to provable falsehood; no triable issue. |
| Whether statute of limitations barred the claim | Only the 2008 statement surviving the single publication rule; not time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guilford Transp. Indus. v. Wilner, 760 A.2d 580 (D.C.2000) (defamatory statements must be verifiable and facts must be provable)
- McClure v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 223 F.3d 845 (8th Cir.2000) (generalized statements about conduct not verifiable are not defamation)
- Gibson v. Boy Scouts of Am., 360 F. Supp. 2d 776 (E.D. Va.2005) (unfit/unworthy language not provably false)
- Moldea v. New York Times Co., 22 F.3d 310 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (statements lacking explicit factual foundation may be protected opinion)
- Washington v. Smith, 80 F.3d 555 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (public-figure defamation requires falsity and verifiability)