Webber v. Ohio Dep't of Pub. Safety
103 N.E.3d 283
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Alice Webber, a Lorain County emergency management assistant director, sued the Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS) for defamation and related claims after ODPS employees relayed that she had not assessed certain flood-damaged areas because residents were "Spanish" or Spanish-speaking.
- The allegation arose from a May 14, 2014 telephone call between Webber and ODPS investigator Bridgette Bouska; ODPS conducted an administrative investigation and produced a report finding Webber did not make derogatory comments.
- Bouska initially told supervisors that Webber said areas were not assessed because of Spanish-speaking residents; later Bouska acknowledged a misunderstanding after review of the call transcript.
- Webber alleged the statements were defamatory per se (accusing her of being racist/discriminatory and failing to perform job duties) and caused reputational and emotional injury; ODPS defended on grounds the statements were nonactionable or entitled to innocent construction and raised qualified privilege.
- The Court of Claims granted summary judgment for ODPS, adopting an "innocent construction" (language-barrier explanation) and held five named ODPS employees were immune; Webber appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements were defamatory (subject to innocent-construction rule) | Webber: statements accused her of not doing her job because of racial/ethnic bias — defamatory per se; innocent construction is not reasonable on these facts | ODPS: statements reasonably construed innocently (language barrier) and thus not defamatory as a matter of law | Reversed Court of Claims: innocent-construction rule did not apply; a reasonable person could read the statements as alleging discriminatory failure to perform duties, so summary judgment on that basis was improper; remanded for further proceedings on remaining defamation elements and privilege defenses |
| Whether named ODPS employees are entitled to personal immunity under R.C. 9.86 / 2743.02(F) | Webber: (below) argued conduct was not immune because allegations were malicious or beyond scope | ODPS: submitted affidavits showing employees acted in scope and in good faith; argued immunity applies | Affirmed as to immunity determination: appellate court found ODPS met initial Civ.R. 56 burden and Webber failed to raise specific factual dispute; Court of Claims' immunity finding sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (standard for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party's burden in summary judgment; nonmoving party must produce specific facts)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (adoption of the innocent-construction rule in defamation law)
- American Chemical Society v. Leadscope, Inc., 133 Ohio St.3d 366 (defamatory-meaning analysis requires review of totality/context)
- McKimm v. Ohio Elections Comm., 89 Ohio St.3d 139 (innocent-construction rule protects only statements reasonably susceptible of innocent meaning)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (definitions of wanton and reckless conduct relevant to immunity analysis)