Law & Courts

Educators’ Libel Suit Against Group Fails

By John Gehring — April 28, 2004 3 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A legal-advocacy group did not act with malice when it alleged in a press release that two North Carolina educators had violated a student’s rights, even though the student had made up her story about being forced to remove a reference to Jesus from a class presentation, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The 6th grade student at C.B. Eller Elementary School in Elkin, N.C., identified in court papers as “HD,” admitted she had also lied about a claim that her teacher had required her to read the word “damn” aloud in class from an assigned book.

Before the girl’s admission, however, lawyers with the Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Va.-based organization that often litigates religious-freedom cases, had demanded in a letter to the superintendent of the Wilkes County, N.C., district that the teacher and the school principal apologize to the girl over the alleged infringement of her First Amendment rights. Rutherford also issued a press release about the November 1999 allegations.

Once the girl admitted she had lied, Rutherford quickly issued a press release acknowledging the admission and apologizing for its earlier press release.

Principal Vickie C. Hugger and teacher Carolyn Settle of Eller Elementary sued the Rutherford Institute and two of its officials, President John W. Whitehead and chief litigation counsel Steven H. Aden, in a North Carolina trial court, alleging defamation and infliction of emotional distress.

The case was removed to the federal district court in Statesville, N.C., where a judge ruled that while the defendants had committed libel under North Carolina law, the principal and the teacher could not recover damages under the First Amendment because they were public officials and the Rutherford Institute did not act with actual malice, the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court for libel cases involving such officials.

In an April 12 opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled unanimously for the Rutherford defendants.

No Reckless Disregard

The incident began when HD’s mother got in touch with the Rutherford Institute to report that the teacher had forced her daughter to erase the letters WWJD—a familiar abbreviation for “What Would Jesus Do?"—from a classroom presentation. The mother also reported her daughter’s claim that the teacher had made her read the word “damn” aloud in class.

Rutherford staff members interviewed the mother and student, then sent a letter to the Wilkes County school district stating that legal action would be pursued if a written apology was not sent to the student and copies sent to all district employees.

Meanwhile, the district’s lawyer investigated the claims and told the Rutherford Institute that he doubted the veracity of the student’s allegations.

The institute again interviewed the mother and student, who insisted the girl was not lying. The two provided the names of several purported witnesses to the incidents. Rutherford tried to reach the witnesses, but did not hear back from any of them. On Nov. 16, 1999, the institute distributed a press release about the case and posted it on its Web site. The release identified the elementary school, but did not name the teacher or the principal.

The 4th Circuit panel declined to decide whether the principal and the teacher were public officials for libel-law purposes. But it found that the alleged conduct discussed in the Rutherford Institute’s press release related to a matter of public concern, and thus the plaintiffs could recover damages only if the institute had acted with actual malice. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that a finding of actual malice requires that the publisher of a statement knew it was false or acted with a “reckless disregard” for whether it was true or false.

The appeals court noted that Rutherford had issued the press release only after following up on the school district lawyer’s concerns.

“Although a reasonable person may have waited to hear from one of the corroborating witnesses before issuing the press release,” the court said, the Rutherford Institute’s “actions are not those of one acting with reckless disregard for the truth.”

John M. Logsdon, the lawyer for the two educators, said he was disappointed with the approach the 4th Circuit panel took, saying it “cleverly danced around the constitutional issue” of whether the teacher and principal were public officials under libel law. He said the plaintiffs were reviewing their options for appealing the case.


This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Data Webinar
Drive Instruction With Mastery-Based Assessment
Deliver the right data at the right time—in the right format—and empower better decisions.
Content provided by Instructure
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Teaching Profession Webinar
How Does Educator Well-Being Impact Social-Emotional Awareness in Schools?
Explore how adult well-being is key to promoting healthy social-emotional behaviors for students. Get strategies to reduce teacher stress.
Content provided by International Baccalaureate
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
IT Infrastructure Webinar
A New Era In Connected Learning: Security, Accessibility and Affordability for a Future-Ready Classroom
Learn about Windows 11 SE and Surface Laptop SE. Enable students to unlock learning and develop new skills.
Content provided by Microsoft Surface

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Leaked Abortion Draft Has Supreme Court Education Cases in Political Cross-Hairs
Conservatives have taken aim at decisions on educating immigrants, race in admissions, and religion. Liberals have some cases in mind, too.
8 min read
supreme court SOC
Law & Courts 'Brown v. Board' Cited in Draft Supreme Court Opinion to Back Overturning Abortion Rights
The leaked opinion in a case still to be decided by the Supreme Court cites landmark decisions including Brown v. Board of Education.
7 min read
A crowd of people gather outside the Supreme Court, Monday night, May 2, 2022 in Washington. A draft opinion circulated among Supreme Court justices suggests that earlier this year a majority of them had thrown support behind overturning the 1973 case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a report published Monday night in Politico. It's unclear if the draft represents the court's final word on the matter. The Associated Press could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the draft Politico posted, which if verified marks a shocking revelation of the high court's secretive deliberation process, particularly before a case is formally decided.
A crowd gathers outside the U.S. Supreme Court Monday night after the leak of a draft opinion suggesting the court intends to overturn the 1973 <i>Roe v. Wade</i> precedent that legalized abortion nationwide.
Alex Brandon/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Rules Against Some 'Emotional Distress' Claims. What It Means for Schools
The dissenters say the decision means students cannot recover damages for the emotional harms of race, sex, or disability bias.
5 min read
Image of the Supreme Court.
Law & Courts Are Teachers Obliged to Tell Parents Their Child Might Be Trans? Courts May Soon Decide
Some administrators say outing a student could lead to child abuse or self-harm. Parents in court filings say they have a right to know.
12 min read
Illustration showing 4 individuals next to their pronouns (he/him, they/them, and she/her)
iStock/Getty Images Plus