Young v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc.

• Citation: 734 F.3d 544
• Decision Date: 31 October 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–3999.,12–3999.
• Parties: James D. YOUNG, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK, INC., Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

734 F.3d 544

James D. YOUNG, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK, INC., Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–3999.

United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit.

Argued June 19, 2013.

Decided and Filed Oct. 31, 2013.

ARGUED:John C. Greiner, Graydon, Head & Ritchey LLP, Cincinnati, OH, for Appellant. Stephen E. Imm, Katz, Greenberger & Norton, LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:John C. Greiner, Graydon, Head & Ritchey LLP, Cincinnati, OH, for Appellant. Stephen E. Imm, Katz, Greenberger & Norton, LLP, Cincinnati, OH, for Appellee.

Before: SILER, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

ROGERS, Circuit Judge.

In 1997, the Miami Township police department fired Police Sergeant James Young for allegedly forcing sex on a woman he was said to be involved with. However, the termination was overturned by an arbitrator. The arbitrator stated that it was unclear what happened on the day in question but that the police department had not proven its allegations. The arbitrator's report also mentioned that DNA samples from the scene did not match Young and found that the complainant lacked credibility. Thirteen years later, a Gannett newspaper published the statement “Young had sex with a woman while on the job” in an article commenting on a local debate about the suspension of a different police officer. Young sued Gannett for defamation and obtained a $100,000 verdict. Gannett now appeals the judgment, arguing that Young did not meet the high threshold for establishing a defamation claim involving a public official. There was sufficient evidence for a jury to decide that Gannett's editor knew that the accusation was probably false and that the editor published it regardless. The district court therefore properly entered judgment on the jury's verdict.

In 2010, Gannett's Milford–Miami Advertiser published an article about a Milford, Ohio police officer named Russell Kenney. According to the article, Kenney had sex with the city's mayor. Although the police chief recommended termination, Kenney received only a fifteen-day suspension. The article suggested that the city chose suspension over termination so that it would not have to go through the arbitration process.

Advertiser editor Theresa Herron decided that the article needed context explainingwhy the city wanted to avoid arbitration. She remembered that, twelve years earlier, neighboring Miami Township had fired Young for allegedly having sex while on duty but an arbitrator overturned the termination. She conducted some research on Young's case, examining the records of the police investigation, the arbitrator's report, and a state court opinion upholding the arbitrator's decision. She then added these two paragraphs to the article:

In 1997, the Miami Township trustees terminated Sgt. James Young for a variety of charges including conduct unbecoming of a police officer, sexual harassment, immoral behavior, neglect of duty and gross misconduct. Young had sex with a woman while on the job.

Young sued saying the trustees violated the collective bargaining contract between the township and the police union. An arbitrator agreed with Young, but the township fought the decision. Clermont County Court of Common Pleas Judge Robert Ringland ruled: “While this court is not indicating it agrees with the arbitrator or condones the conduct which has occurred,” based on other similar cases he could not set aside the arbitrator's decision. Young is a current employee with the Miami Township Police Department.

Young's story was more complex than the article suggested. Young and the woman at issue, Marcey Phillips, had apparently been seeing each other since Phillips's relationship with one of Young's coworkers ended. Young admitted during the police department investigation that he had placed his hands on Phillips's body, had hugged her and had kissed her. He had also made jokes in the presence of fellow police employees about alleged or desired sexual behavior with Phillips and had called Phillips from work. However, Young denied that he ever engaged in sexual conduct with Phillips. On February 9, 1997, the relationship went sour. It remains unclear what happened on that day, but Phillips later accused Young of forcing her to perform oral sex on him. The police department investigated. During the investigation, the police recovered a human semen sample from the rug where Phillips alleged the sexual act occurred. Based on the investigation, the police department recommended terminating Young. The local laboratory later determined that the semen did not match Young's DNA.

Young's union filed a grievance and, under the collective bargaining agreement, an arbitrator took up the matter. The arbitrator found that both Young and Phillips lacked credibility. The arbitrator noted that Phillips had a “well documented history of histrionic ... behavior that seriously undermined her credibility,” lied about being engaged to two men, lied about being diagnosed with cancer, and lied about being pursued or abused by other men. Turning to the events of February 9, 1997, the arbitrator found that Phillips's accusation of forced oral sex was not supported by the evidence. He noted that it was a “classic ‘he said, she said’ scenario” and that the “lack of truthfulness by both parties ... prevents any reasonable assessment of what happened.”

The arbitrator concluded that “the evidence and testimony create doubts as to whether the relationship went beyond what could be described as a private relationship between two consenting adults” and that the township “failed to establish a nexus between the personal conduct of [Young with Phillips] and his job.” The arbitrator therefore ordered that Young be reinstated. However, the arbitrator also found that the township had proven that Young had violated its rules by making inappropriate sexual remarks regarding Phillips at work, by failing to leave Phillips's residence immediately upon receiving a call, and by failing to follow orders not to discuss the investigation with others. The arbitrator ordered that Young's termination be converted to a sixty-day suspension and that Young be required to attend a sexual-harassment training session.

The township appealed the arbitrator's decision. The Clermont County Court of Common Pleas affirmed, noting that it was “constrained by the standards of review permitted in upholding this arbitration decision” and, accordingly, did not engage in its own independent fact-finding.

Thirteen years after the alleged incident occurred, Young saw the Advertiser article and sued Gannett for defamation. The district court denied Gannett's motion for summary judgment. The case was presented to a jury, and the jury was instructed that to find for Young, they must “find by clear and convincing evidence ... that ... [Gannett] acted with actual malice.” The court explained to the jury that actual malice “occurs when the defendant makes a false statement either with the knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false.” Furthermore, the court instructed the jury that “[i]n the case of an ambiguous document, the adoption of a rational interpretation, though arguably reflecting a misconception, does not constitute actual malice.” The jury found Gannett liable, awarding Young $100,000 in compensatory damages.

Gannett moved for judgment as a matter of law, but the district court denied that motion as well. interpretation of an ambiguous document. Second, Gannett argues that the Young failed to prove harm to his reputation. Neither argument has merit.

The Advertiser 's editor, Herron, reviewed the arbitrator's report. She therefore knew that there was no evidence that Young had forced sex on Phillips and that it was unclear whether they had ever had sex at all. In the definitive Supreme Court case regarding the sufficiency of a jury verdict finding actual malice in the press coverage of a public figure, the Supreme Court explained the standard to be applied by the jury:

If a false and defamatory statement is published with knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth, the public figure may prevail. A “reckless disregard” for the truth, however, requires more than a departure from reasonably prudent conduct. “There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” The standard is a subjective one—there must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant actually had a “high degree of awareness of ... probable falsity.” ... In a case such as this involving the reporting of a third party's allegations, “recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports.”

Harte–Hanks Commc'ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 688, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989) (citations omitted). There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Herron was well aware that the statement she added to the article was probably false. She nonetheless added the statement to provide context for the story about Officer Kenney. The jury could find reckless disregard of the truth and clear and convincing proof of actual malice.

The jury could have properly relied upon the inclusion in the arbitrator's reportof several statements that Herron should have seen as red flags. First, the report noted that the semen found on Phillips's carpet did not match Young's DNA. Second, the report cast serious doubts on Phillips's credibility. Third, it mentioned only a single incident that occurred while Young was on duty. As to that incident, the arbitrator noted that Phillips's accusation that Young forced her to perform oral sex “is not supported by the evidence” and that “[t]he lack of truthfulness by both parties ... prevents any reasonable assessment of what happened.” Finally, the arbitrator...