Weaver v. Deevers
2021 Ohio 3791
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Gretchen Weaver (band director) and Shane Ellsworth (assistant) taught at Streetsboro High School and led the annual marching band camp; allegations of hazing at the 2016 camp were reported by parents of student participants.
- Parents (the Deevers and the Maines) emailed school administrators reporting their daughters’ accounts; the Board investigated under its anti-hazing and anti-harassment policies.
- Superintendent Daulbaugh issued a district-wide robo-call and the Board President made public statements about the investigation; the teachers were suspended (initially with pay, later without pay) and faced possible termination.
- An independent referee found the activities did not rise to hazing under Board policy and recommended reinstatement with lesser discipline; the Board nevertheless upheld suspension and lesser discipline was imposed.
- Weaver and Ellsworth later sued the parents, the Board, and individual school officials for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), civil conspiracy, and loss of consortium; the trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss of consortium | Derivative damages from alleged torts against spouses | No bodily/physical injury alleged, so derivative claim fails | Summary judgment for defendants — claim fails without bodily injury |
| Immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 (Board & employees) | Board/employees not immune because claims arise from employment; employees acted with malice/bad faith | Political-subdivision immunity applies; employee exceptions inapplicable or not proven | Board immunity exception (R.C. 2744.09(B)) applies (trial court erred to the extent it found otherwise), but school employees retained immunity because plaintiffs failed to show malice/recklessness |
| Defamation (qualified privilege & actual malice) | Public statements and parents’ emails falsely accused teachers and were made negligently/recklessly | Statements were conditionally/qualifiedly privileged (duty to protect students); no actual malice shown | Qualified privilege applied; plaintiffs failed to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence — summary judgment for defendants |
| IIED & Civil conspiracy | Dissemination of allegations, allegedly arbitrary investigation, and coordinated actions were extreme, outrageous, and malicious | Conduct did not meet the extreme/outrageous standard; privileged statements foreclose derivative IIED; no underlying unlawful act for conspiracy | Court found conduct not extreme/outrageous as matter of law; no underlying unlawful act for conspiracy — summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (summary-judgment standard)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant’s burden and burden-shifting framework for Civ.R. 56)
- A & B–Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 73 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1995) (qualified/conditional privilege doctrine)
- Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237 (Ohio 1975) (analysis of privileged communications)
- Jacobs v. Frank, 60 Ohio St.3d 111 (Ohio 1991) (actual malice defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard)
- Weber v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 68 N.E.3d 207 (11th Dist. 2016) (elements of defamation)
- Phung v. Waste Mgt., Inc., 71 Ohio St.3d 408 (Ohio 1994) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (Ohio 1983) (extreme and outrageous conduct standard for IIED)
- Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc., 63 Ohio St.3d 84 (Ohio 1992) (loss-of-consortium is derivative and requires bodily injury)