Disend v. Meadowbrook School, 91-P-908

• Decision Date: 08 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-P-908,91-P-908
• Citation: 604 N.E.2d 54,33 Mass.App.Ct. 674
• Parties: , 79 Ed. Law Rep. 215, 20 Media L. Rep. 2206 Donna DISEND v. MEADOWBROOK SCHOOL.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 54

604 N.E.2d 54

33 Mass.App.Ct. 674, 79 Ed. Law Rep. 215,

20 Media L. Rep. 2206

Donna DISEND v. MEADOWBROOK SCHOOL.

No. 91-P-908.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts Norfolk.

Argued Oct. 14, 1992.

Decided Dec. 8, 1992.

Evan T. Lawson, Boston, for plaintiff.

Karen A. Ecker, Acton, for defendant.

Before DREBEN, KASS and GREENBERG, JJ.

KASS, Justice.

On the ground that the allegedly libelous document was, on its face, devoid of defamatory content, a Superior Court judge dismissed the complaint in this case for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. See Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 755 (1974). The plaintiff Donna Disend has appealed. We think the words complained of can reasonably be understood in a defamatory sense and, therefore, reverse the judgment of dismissal.

Although three purportedly injurious letters were attached to the complaint, the libelous sting is arguably present only (as the plaintiff has conceded on appeal) in the letter dated March 26, 1990, which was sequentially the first of the three. In its entirety, that letter, written by the headmaster of the defendant Meadowbrook School, read as follows:

"Dear Parents of Fourth Grade Students,

Recently an incident involving Donna Disend was brought to the attention of the Board of Trustees. The Executive Committee reviewed the specifics of the situation and agreed with my recommendation to terminate Mrs. Disend's contract for the remainder of the year.

Within an hour after Mrs. Disend was asked to leave, she and her husband went into the fourth grade classroom without my permission. Mrs. Disend was inappropriate in the way she dealt with the children.

Please join me this evening at 8:00 P.M. in the Fourth Grade classroom so that I may explain the situation to you and plan appropriate ways to help our children through this transition."

We are to ask ourselves whether those words, may reasonably be read as discrediting Disend in the minds of any considerable and respectable class of the community. Sharratt v. Housing Innovations, Inc., 365 Mass. 141, 143-145, 310 N.E.2d 343 (1974). Smith v. Suburban Restaurants, Inc., 374 Mass. 528, 529, 373 N.E.2d 215 (1978). Tartaglia v. Townsend, 19 Mass.App.Ct. 693, 696, 477 N.E.2d 178 (1985). There are in the headmaster's letter no words such as "dishonest," "diseased," "insane," or "bankrupt," any of which, if false, quite obviously denigrate the person so described. Words not inherently disparaging may, however, have that effect if viewed contextually, i.e., in the light of attendant circumstances. Sharratt v. Housing Innovations, Inc., supra 365 Mass. at 145, 310 N.E.2d 343 (in factual context, failure to mention the plaintiff at all permitted the innuendo that he had been dismissed as architect on a particular project). Smith v. Suburban Restaurants, Inc., supra 374 Mass. at 529-530, 373 N.E.2d 215 (letter that the plaintiff, because of her actions, was no longer welcome at the defendant restaurant was susceptible of disparaging interpretation). Compare Foley v. Lowell Sun Publishing Co., 404 Mass. 9, 11, 533 N.E.2d 196 (1989) (reader could not reasonably infer from context that newspaper was accusing plaintiff of assaulting a police officer). See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 563, comment d and e (1977).

As to the letter of the headmaster complained of, it does not require a fevered imagination to think that an "incident" brought to the attention of the school trustees, the "specifics" of which warranted a teacher's immediate dismissal before the end of the academic year must have involved misconduct of an egregious sort. The complaint is pointed in claiming that the innuendo of professional misconduct damaged Disend's reputation and her ability to earn a living as a teacher. Adding to the impression of grievous professional--or worse--misconduct is the sentence in the same letter that "Mrs. Disend was inappropriate in the way she dealt with the children." As contextual facts are developed, it may turn out that the suggestive words and phrases are innocent, but at the pleading stage the allegations of the plaintiff are to be read indulgently in the sense that the complaint may stand unless, on the face of the complaint, it is unmistakable that the plaintiff can prove no facts in support of a tenable legal claim. Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96, 98, 360 N.E.2d 870 (1977). Connerty v. Metropolitan Dist. Commn., 398 Mass. 140, 143, 495 N.E.2d 840 (1986). New England Insulation Co. v. General Dynamics Corp., 26 Mass.App.Ct. 28, 29-30, 522 N.E.2d 997 (1988). Contrast Tropeano v. Atlantic Monthly Co., 379 Mass. 745, 751, 400 N.E.2d 847 (1980).

As an alternate barrier to maintenance of Disend's action, the school argues that the headmaster's letter is no more than an expression of opinion, hence incapable of interpretation in a defamatory sense. S...