Апелляционный суд Нью-Джерси подтвердил иммунитет школы в деле о клевете на учителя

Суд единогласно отклонил иск бывшего подставного учителя, заявившего о клевете против администрации школы, поскольку ответ на официальное расследование был признан истинным. Судья указал, что для доказательства клеветы в вопросах общественного интереса истец должен был доказать злой умысел, чего не удалось сделать.

Перевод ИИ

Текст статьи доступен на языке оригинала.

Нажмите кнопку «Перевести статью» выше, чтобы сгенерировать перевод с помощью ИИ.

Оригинальный контент

Источник

In a recent unanimous decision, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment. OS represented a public school and its administrators in a defamation action brought by a former substitute teacher. The case arose from an anonymous complaint to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (CP&P), which was later determined to be unfounded. In the Complaint, Plaintiff claimed that the public school unjustly made her the target of that investigation. She made claims for defamation of character, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. OS took over this matter with a trial date already pending and quickly formulated a defense strategy, filing a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to prove the elements of defamation and the client’s immunity under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. OS argued the motion before the trial court, which granted summary judgment and dismissed all claims. Plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Appellate Division held that the administrator’s response to the CP&P investigator’s inquiry was truthful and not defamatory. Because the matter involved an issue of public concern, the Court required Plaintiff to demonstrate actual malice by clear and convincing evidence—a burden she failed to meet. With the core defamation claim defeated, the Court dismissed all derivative claims, including intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, as arising from the same underlying conduct. The Court also acknowledged the defense’s Tort Claims Act immunity argument (N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3). This decision confirms that individuals and organizations who respond truthfully to official inquiries are protected under the law — even when those responses lead to further scrutiny. Importantly, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment, demonstrating that courts will not allow claims to proceed to trial when a plaintiff cannot meet their burden of proof.