|
February
14, 2011
Governmental
Immunity Bars Defamation and Other Claims Against
Superintendent,
District
by
Sarah A.
Geddes
In
its January 13, 2011 decision in Heffelfinger v. Bad
Axe Public Schools and Wencel, the Michigan Court
of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a defamation
and intentional infliction of emotional distress
lawsuit filed by a former employee against the
district and its Superintendent. The
plaintiff, a band teacher, claimed intentional
infliction of emotional distress by the
Superintendent, and defamation through false
accusations of inappropriate conduct. The
Circuit Court dismissed all claims, and the Court
of Appeals upheld the Circuit Court's dismissal of
all claims.
Pursuant
to a prior executed, "Last Chance Agreement," the
teacher resigned after the school district
discovered pornographic material on his school
computer, and after the school investigated
allegations of inappropriate conduct of
students.
The alleged misconduct included drinking
beer with underage students outside of school and
making inappropriate advances toward a female
student outside of school. The plaintiff
alleged that the Superintendent had defamed him by
stating the accusations in open session at a Board
of Education meeting, and by discussing the
conduct with a student's parent.
Both
parties agreed that the Superintendent was acting
within the scope of his official duties in
bringing the personnel matter before the
Board. As the chief executive of the school
district, where a superintendent is acting within
the scope of his or her official duties,
governmental immunity applies. In addition
to governmental immunity, the doctrine of
"absolute privilege" protected statements made by
a Superintendent in furtherance of an
official duty during a duly convened meeting of a
school board.
The
plaintiff had requested an open meeting of the
School Board, contrary to the advice of his union
representative. Since Plaintiff understood
that what was said at the open meeting of the
Board would be a matter of public record, he had
no cause to complain when the Superintendent
described in open session the misconduct
that led to the resignation.
During
the District's investigation of the misconduct, a
parent testified that the Superintendent had
spoken to her about the plaintiff's
misconduct. The Court of Appeals concluded
statements made to the parent were substantially
true, which defeated any defamation claim.
In the alternative, the Court of Appeals concluded
that the Superintendent was acting within his
scope of authority when relaying the information
to a parent of another band student. "[T]he
scope of a superintendent's authority is broad,"
held the Court, "because of his responsibility
in loco parentis, with his role having been
said to include any act taken as chief
administrator and disciplinarian in the school
district."
Governmental
immunity barred the plaintiff's claim of
intentional infliction of emotional
distress. The Court of Appeals added that
even absent immunity, the Superintendent's
statements did not "rise to the level of extreme
or outrageous conduct," nor were they intended to
inflict emotional harm.
The
Court of Appeals' decision embraces a broad
interpretation of a Superintendent's official
duties. Governmental immunity offers an
effective defense against tort claims derived from
a Superintendent's exercise of his/her official
duties. To learn more about how this case
may impact your district, contact your Clark Hill
attorney. | 