Webber v. Ohio Dept. of Public Safety
2017 Ohio 2695
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2017Background
- Webber was Assistant Director of the Lorain County Emergency Management Agency and coordinated response to May 2014 flooding while the director was out of state.
- Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS) personnel reviewed county "street sheets" documenting preliminary damage assessments (PDAs) and questioned apparent inaccuracies.
- ODPS employee Brigitte Bouska contacted Webber and later reported that Webber suggested unassessed areas included Spanish-speaking, low-income, minority, or disabled residents.
- ODPS investigators reviewed a recording of the Bouska–Webber call and concluded Webber’s remarks were not the basis for any unassessed areas; they found Bouska had misstated what Webber said and had not exercised due diligence.
- Webber sued for defamation and sought a determination whether ODPS employees (Bouska, Adcock, Dragani, Elder, Merick) are immune under R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F).
- The court granted summary judgment for ODPS: it held the statements were subject to an innocent construction and thus not defamatory, and the named employees were entitled to statutory civil immunity; common pleas courts lacked jurisdiction for such claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements about Webber were defamatory | Bouska falsely accused Webber of racist/discriminatory conduct causing reputational harm | Statements were non-actionable or opinion and susceptible to innocent meanings | Court: Not defamatory as a matter of law; innocent construction adopted |
| Whether accusation of racism can be defamation per se | Webber: being labeled racist or discriminatory is per se defamation damaging to profession | ODPS: accusation may be opinion; innocent interpretation exists (language barrier explanation) | Court: Ohio law allows racism to be defamation per se in some cases, but here innocent construction controls; no defamation per se proved |
| Application of the innocent-construction rule | Webber: statements have defamatory meaning as alleged | ODPS: statements reasonably susceptible to an innocent meaning (assessment missed due to language barrier) | Court: Adopted innocent construction; resolved ambiguity for defendant |
| Whether ODPS employees are entitled to civil immunity and whether common pleas have jurisdiction | Webber: seeks to challenge immunity and proceed in common pleas | ODPS: R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F) shield employees acting within scope and without malice; claims must go to Court of Claims first | Court: Employees entitled to immunity; plaintiffs cannot proceed in common pleas on these allegations; summary judgment for defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660 (2004) (summary-judgment standard and citation to Temple)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (standard for summary judgment construction of evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
- Moore v. P.W. Publishing Co., 3 Ohio St.2d 183 (1965) (definition of defamation and defamation per se)
- Stevens v. Tillman, 855 F.2d 394 (7th Cir. 1988) (discussion that accusations of racism, in some contexts, are opinion and non-actionable)
- Sweitzer v. Outlet Communications, Inc., 133 Ohio App.3d 102 (10th Dist. 1999) (description of Ohio's innocent-construction rule)