Belliveau v. Rerick, 83-311-A
Decision Date | 18 February 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 83-311-A,83-311-A |
Citation | 504 A.2d 1360 |
Parties | 30 Ed. Law Rep. 767 James F. BELLIVEAU v. Mark N. RERICK. ppeal. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case comes before us on appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant in the Superior Court. We affirm. The facts of the case are as follows.
The plaintiff, James F. Belliveau, served as an assistant professor of chemistry at Providence College for approximately thirteen years. On September 25, 1980, plaintiff informed the chairman of the chemistry department, Professor Mark N. Rerick, that he would apply for promotion from assistant professor to associate professor. The defendant suggested that plaintiff should submit supporting materials that would be of assistance to the committee that would review his qualifications for promotion. Pursuant to this suggestion, plaintiff submitted a four-page summary of his research activities and publications during his period of service at Providence College. By responses to requests for admissions and through the affidavits filed by the parties, it was established that in accordance with academic policy at Providence College, members of the chemistry department met to consider plaintiff's promotion request. Four senior members of the chemistry faculty voted to approve the request. It then became the responsibility of defendant according to academic policy and regulations to submit his recommendation in written form to Dr. Paul van K Thomson, vice president of academic administration. In furtherance of this responsibility, defendant submitted the following memorandum to Dr. Thomson:
As a result of defendant's recommendation, Dr. Thomson informed plaintiff that the Providence College Committee on Academic Rank and Tenure declined to recommend to the president of the college that plaintiff be promoted to the rank of associate professor of chemistry. This memorandum contained the following language:
As a consequence, plaintiff was not promoted. On June 11, 1982, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court seeking damages incurred as a result of the statements contained in defendant's memorandum to Dr. Thomson. He alleged that these statements were libelous. The gist of plaintiff's complaint arose out of defendant's statement: "In his ten years at Providence College Dr. Belliveau has not published except a brief note in an in-house bulletin, i.e. Providence College Biological Notes." The plaintiff alleges that this statement was false and that its falsity is apparent from the four-page list of research activities and publications submitted to the department committee. It is disclosed by the affidavits submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment and the affidavit and memoranda in opposition thereto that plaintiff and defendant disagreed on the definition of the term "published." For example, defendant did not consider theses of undergraduate and graduate students prepared under the supervision of plaintiff as publications. He also did not consider abstracts outlining papers presented at scientific meetings to be publications. However, there is no dispute about the fact that defendant's recommendation and opinion were based upon the four-page list of activities and "publications" submitted by plaintiff himself.
In support of his appeal, plaintiff asserts that the mischaracterization of his works and the statement that he had only one "publication" were both false and defamatory. The defendant argues in opposition to the appeal that his statement of opinion was made on the basis of disclosed facts and that it is constitutionally privileged. The defendant also argues that even if his factual statement were inaccurate, he is entitled to a qualified privilege conferred upon one who has a duty by virtue of his relationship to the vice president of academic administration to speak on the subject of proposed faculty promotions within his department. In light of our determination of the issue relating to expression of opinion, extended analysis of the qualified-privilege issue is unnecessary.
Although at common law an expression of opinion might have been actionable as defamatory in the event that such an expression was sufficiently derogatory of another to cause harm to his reputation, 3 Restatement (Second) Torts § 566 at 170-71 (1976), that rule now appears to have been rendered unconstitutional by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). In that case the Court observed:
Id. at 339-40, 94 S.Ct. at 3007, 41 L.Ed.2d at 805.
As a result of the foregoing observation, the Restatement of Torts...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Socha v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers
...facts as the basis for the opinion.'" Healey v. New England Newspapers, Inc., 555 A.2d 321, 324 (R.I.) (quoting Belliveau v. Rerick, 504 A.2d 1360, 1362 (R.I.1986)), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814, 110 S.Ct. 63, 107 L.Ed.2d 30 (1989). Whether a particular communication is defamatory is a questi......
-
Henry v. Media Gen. Operations, Inc., C.A. No. PC-2014-2837
...ill will, or general hostility will not satisfy the New York Times Co. standard." Major, 507 A.2d at 941 (citing Belliveau v. Rerick, 504 A.2d 1360, 1363 n.1 (R.I. 1986); DeCarvalho v. daSilva, 414 A.2d 806, 811 n.2 (R.I. 1980)). While there is evidence of a grudge between Captain Guilbeaul......
-
Burdick v. Town of Westerly
...Court finds his statements subject to qualified privilege and finds no evidence of common-law malice, they are not defamatory. Belliveau, 504 A.2d at 1363. Consequently, Defendant Hartford is entitled to judgment as to Count XIV of the Amended Complaint. Private Facts and False Light Invasi......
-
Burdick v. Town of Westerly
...Plaintiff; furthermore, it is privileged, and because there is no evidence of common-law malice, it is not defamatory. Belliveau v. Rerick, 504 A.2d 1360, 1363 (R.I. 1986) (holding that, where a qualified privilege has been found, the question is "whether the plaintiff had raised, in opposi......