-1

Is a part-time lecturer of a public university (without quarterly renewed and without any benefits) still a "limited public figure"?

David
  • 1
  • 2

1 Answers1

2

Is a part-time lecturer of a public university (without quarterly renewed and without any benefits) still a "limited public figure"?

Employment at a public university does not automatically attach the status of public figure, since not all positions there implicate the acquisition of "roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society". As the U.S. Supreme Court explains at Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 345 (1974),

those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

Thus, if the part-time lecturer was defamed about matters in which he or she has prominence, the issue of defamation would be adjudged under a status of public figure.

The opinion McGarry v. University of San Diego, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 467, 481 (2007) cites various authorities for the proposition that

[n]umerous courts [...] have concluded professional and collegiate athletes and coaches are at least limited purpose public figures [...] [because] one's voluntary decision to pursue a career in sports, whether as an athlete or a coach, `invites attention and comment' regarding his job performance and thus constitutes an assumption of the risk of negative publicity

As you will notice from the McGary opinion, mere employment at a public university is not what determines the status of limited [purpose] public figure, but the plaintiff's aforementioned role (if any) of prominence in the matter at issue.

You might already know that the relevance of being considered a public figure in a defamation lawsuit lies in whether the plaintiff is required to prove that the defendant made the defamatory falsehood(s) with a mental state known in defamation law as actual malice (that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not; see Gertz at 328).

Depending on who defamed the lecturer, he [the lecturer] might have to prove actual malice anyway because --under some circumstances-- the defendant's falsehoods could be within the scope of qualified privilege. In such instances, the status of public figure only heightens (to the plaintiff's detriment) the applicable standard of proof of actual malice.

8/20/2018 Edited to add: Reference to defamation case involving a public university (see comment by Nate Eldredge)

The decision of Waters v. Ohio State University (a public university) does not strictly constitute legal precedent, although it is consistent with McGarry in that

the touchstone of the limited-purpose public figure analysis remains determining whether an individual has assumed [a] role[] of especial prominence in the affairs of society

(citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis added)

It is noteworthy that the OSU's argument is not that Waters was a public figure insofar as employee of the University, but that he "should be considered a public person because, as director of the OSU marching band, he enjoyed national — and even international acclaim." (internal quotation marks omitted).

Iñaki Viggers
  • 1
  • 4
  • 68
  • 95
  • Then how one can determine a PTL has "roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society"? – David Aug 19 '18 at 01:33
  • 2
    @David by looking at the person's prominence in the affairs of society and deciding whether the prominence is especially great in magnitude. – phoog Aug 19 '18 at 02:40
  • In line with phoog's comment, it depends on the particulars of the PTL and of the topic on which the PTL was defamed. For instance, a politician-gone-lecturer is much likelier to be considered prominent in his field than a lecturer with no publicly significant involvement in matters of widespread interest. See also the third paragraph in the opinion Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Intern., LTD., 691 F.2d 666 (1982), listing five requirements for limited purpose public figure. – Iñaki Viggers Aug 19 '18 at 11:01
  • 1
    Incidentally, the University of San Diego is a private university, not public. – Nate Eldredge Aug 20 '18 at 01:23
  • 1
    @NateEldredge Thanks for the remark. I have edited my answer to add the more recent [court of claims] case of Waters v. Ohio State University. The analysis applied therein is the same as in McGarry, though. – Iñaki Viggers Aug 20 '18 at 10:32
  • Worth noting that the usual test is whether someone is a public figure or if the matter is a matter of public concern. Either prong can results in heightened restrictions on defamation claims. Also, defamation claims cannot be brought against providers of Internet services based upon user provide content, in the U.S., subject to some narrow exceptions (websites facilitating human trafficking basically, and copyright violations if takedown requests are ignored). – ohwilleke Aug 21 '18 at 02:29