Hays v. Laforge
| Decision Date | 11 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-CA-00639-COA |
| Parties | William "Bill" HAYS, Appellant v. William LAFORGE, Appellee |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: RONALD W. LEWIS, Oxford
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: J. CAL MAYO JR., Oxford, SARAH KATHERINE EMBRY
BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND McCARTY, JJ.
CARLTON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This matter arose from Delta State University's decision not to reappoint Appellant William "Bill" Hays as chair of the University's languages and literature division (L&L division) in May 2014. A controversy developed due to Hays's non-reappointment and intensified over the next three months. University administration, including Appellee William LaForge, the president of the University, believed Hays encouraged this controversy. Because the University believed that the controversy threatened to undermine effective university and division operations, President LaForge appeared at a division faculty meeting on August 15, 2014, at the request of the provost and division chair. He addressed the faculty, including Hays specifically, in forceful (and what may be considered harsh) terms, demanding that the counterproductive behavior relating to Hays's non-reappointment stop.
¶2. Hays sued President LaForge based upon statements he made at his August 15, 2014 address to the L&L division faculty and comments arising from that address, seeking relief for slander, slander per se, "false light" invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Circuit Court of Bolivar County, Second Judicial District, granted summary judgment in President LaForge's favor. The trial court found that qualified privilege barred Hays's claims because Hays had failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact that President LaForge acted with actual malice in this case.
¶3. Hays's sole contention on appeal is that he did present sufficient proof to create a genuine issue of material fact that President LaForge acted with actual malice when he addressed the L&L division on August 15, 2014, and in comments arising from that address. For the reasons addressed below, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in President LaForge's favor and dismissal of Hays's civil action, with prejudice.
¶4. This matter involves a dispute between Hays, a former English professor at Delta State University, and President LaForge. The University employed Hays as an English professor for thirty-three years, beginning in August 1981. In 2006, Hays also accepted an administrative appointment as chair of the L&L division. He executed an employment contract for that position. The employment contract provided that "[b]y signing this [contract] you ... agree that you have no property interest in the administrative position named above, serve at the will and pleasure of the university[,] and may be removed from this administrative position at any time, with or without cause."
¶5. Interim Dean Paul Hankins, Provost Charles McAdams, and President LaForge did not reappoint Hays as division chair for the term beginning July 1, 2014. Dean Hankins notified Hays of the decision in a letter to him dated May 22, 2014. Dean Hankins named Don Allan "Chip" Mitchell to serve as interim division chair.
¶6. A campus and community-wide controversy began after Hays was not reappointed as division chair. Efforts were made by various persons in an attempt to have the University reverse its decision, including a "Reinstate Bill Hays" community Facebook page created by two graduate students and a recent alumnus. According to the affidavit of one of its creators, the Facebook page was created to "use it as a platform to encourage people to write letters of support for Dr. Hays to President LaForge," and all three administrators of the Facebook page stated in their affidavits that Hays was not involved in "suggestions or submissions to be posted on the site." A letter and e-mail campaign also took place, as well as the wearing of T-shirts containing slogans in support of Hays. The University did not change its decision.
¶7. The University, including President LaForge, believed that Hays encouraged and participated in the controversy. The record contains emails between Hays and community members, former and current faculty members, and graduate students and alumni; affidavits of faculty members and others; and deposition testimony of Hays and other witnesses showing Hays's participation in the controversy. These include over forty emails from Hays to one of the Facebook site administrators regarding the reinstatement campaign and communications from Hays to April Stewart, who featured cartoons on the Facebook site that were aimed at poking fun at members of the University's administration and the interim chair.1 The record reflects that President LaForge knew about the "Reinstate Bill Hays" Facebook campaign and unflattering cartoons left with Dean Hankins and Interim Chair Mitchell; and LaForge received dozens of emails from students, faculty, alumni, and community members opposing the decision not to reappoint Hays as division chair.
¶8. The record also reflects that President LaForge received reports of Hays's "unprofessional behavior among [his] colleagues" following Hays's non-reappointment. President LaForge explained in his deposition that this behavior "seemed to percolate up and got worse from June to July [2014]." He received these reports from Interim Chair Mitchell, as well as Provost McAdams, Vice President for University Relations Michelle Roberts, and Dean Hankins. LaForge was also forwarded and reviewed emails from Hays to the L&L division relating to the reinstatement campaign.
¶9. In his affidavit, Provost McAdams said that he periodically "met with President LaForge [and] informed him of the deteriorating climate in the Division as a result of the Hays controversy," including specific incidents of "faculty disruptions," "disrespect for the Interim Chair," and "[t]he involvement of students in the Hays controversy." Provost McAdams believed that the "Hays controversy was affecting the academy and distracting from the University's mission," so in August he "asked President LaForge to address the entire division and to communicate to them that ‘enough is enough.’ " President LaForge did so on August 15, 2014, appearing at an L&L division faculty meeting and addressing those present, including Hays.
¶10. As described by the trial court in its order granting summary judgment in President LaForge's favor, his comments to the L&L division "were in a direct and what might be considered a harsh tone ... aimed at the perceived disruption of normal collegiate life at the university and the extent, if any, to which Hays and perhaps others purportedly contributed to this disruption." In his address, for example, President LaForge explained to the division:
There is a pattern in this division of belligerence, of rudeness, really unprofessional behavior .... [N]ot all of you. Some of you are involved with it, some of you caused it, and some of you enabled it. And you let it go on too long and it's going to stop. I am putting you on notice today that that type of behavior toward the Dean, toward the Provost, toward each other, toward your Interim Chair, no matter what your beliefs about anything that has happened in terms of the changeover in chair. None of that's going to be tolerated anymore.
Continuing, President LaForge told the group, Speaking directly to Hays, President LaForge said, A transcript and an audio recording of President LaForge's address are part of the record, and his statements in that address will be addressed in further detail, as necessary, below. Hays also takes issue with purported "attacks" against him by President LaForge relating to the August 15, 2014 address that occurred in the following days and other events occurring in the following months. These communications and incidents will be discussed in context, as necessary, below.
¶11. Hays retired from the University in December 2015.
¶12. Hays filed this action in the Bolivar County Circuit Court on November 13, 2015, and filed his amended complaint on March 14, 2016,2 seeking to recover from President LaForge for slander, slander per se, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based primarily on statements President LaForge made in his August 15, 2014 address to L&L division faculty.3
¶13. President LaForge subsequently answered and then moved for summary judgment on December 27, 2017, requesting that the trial court enter judgment in his favor because (1) the alleged defamatory statements are not actionable as a matter of law; (2) Hays, a vortex public figure, cannot prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence; (3) qualified immunity bars Hays's claims; and (4) no sufficient evidence exists to support Hays's claims of false light invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
¶14. After a hearing, the trial court granted President LaForge's motion on April 24, 2020, concluding that qualified privilege bars all of Hays's claims. In particular, the trial court found that Hays had failed to present evidence that President LaForge exceeded the scope of that privilege or acted with actual malice in this case. Hays filed a "Motion for Relief from Judgment or to Alter or Amend Judgment" under Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(6) and Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial