Verity v. USA TODAY
164 Idaho 832
| Idaho | 2019Background
- In 2005 James Verity, then an Oregon teacher/coach, engaged in a months‑long sexual relationship with an 18‑year‑old student; Oregon revoked his teaching license after investigation.
- Verity later sought reinstatement, was denied, then applied in Idaho, obtained an Idaho teaching license after appeal and counseling, and taught in Idaho until 2016.
- In February 2016 USA TODAY, KGW, KTVB and individual reporters published/broadcast investigative pieces about teacher discipline records and Verity's past; Vallivue School District received public complaints and Verity resigned.
- The Veritys sued for defamation by implication and related torts; the district court denied summary judgment on several implied‑defamation theories, concluding reasonable jurors could find false implications.
- The media obtained permissive appellate review under Idaho Appellate Rule 12 on discrete questions: public‑official/status, recognition and elements of defamation by implication, proof standard, and appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a public school teacher/coach is a public official for First Amendment malice standard | Verity: not a public official; ordinary private‑citizen protection applies | Media: teachers performing public functions are public officials; actual malice required | Court: Verity is not a public official or public figure; actual malice not required (private‑party standard) |
| Whether Idaho recognizes defamation by implication and required elements | Verity: Idaho already recognizes implied defamation (Wiemer); claim actionable where true statements imply false innuendo | Media: recognizing the tort conflicts with Idaho precedent that true statements are nonactionable and risks First Amendment chill | Court: Idaho recognizes defamation by implication; plaintiff must prove communication, a false impression by implication/context, defendant intended/endorsed the implication, actual damages, and amount of damages |
| Standard of proof for implied‑defamation claims | Verity: ordinary preponderance should govern | Media: constitutional concerns require heightened proof or bar | Held: plaintiff must make an "especially rigorous" showing as to implication and intent, but proof remains by a preponderance of the evidence (not clear‑and‑convincing) |
| Application to the publications — whether summary judgment was appropriate for each defendant | Verity: contested that multiple defendants impliedly defamed him (danger to students; hid past; committed crime) | Media: publications were substantially true or included facts negating alleged implications; reporters did not intend or endorse the false inferences | Held: affirmed dismissal of claims as to USA TODAY, Reilly, KTVB, Tremblay; reversed dismissal insofar as KGW's broadcast could reasonably be read to imply Verity committed sexual intercourse with a minor (jury question). |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (constitutional actual‑malice standard for public officials)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (private‑plaintiff protection and states' authority to set fault standards)
- Wiemer v. Rankin, 117 Idaho 566 (Idaho case recognizing defamatory implication in context)
- Clark v. The Spokesman‑Review, 144 Idaho 427 (elements of defamation in Idaho)
- White v. Fraternal Order of Police ("White II"), 909 F.2d 512 (framework: threshold whether communication can bear defamatory implication and whether it supplies affirmative evidence of intent/endorsement)
- Dallas Morning News, Inc. v. Tatum, 554 S.W.3d 614 (contextual, case‑specific inquiry into gist/sting and whether publication discloses factual bases)