The Supreme Court held that a Community Service Officer had a right to a fair hearing on his "defamation" claim against MPD and his superior.
THE ISSUE: CSO Travis Minke passed the Peace Officer Licensing Exam which qualified him to apply for a position as a law enforcement officer. In 2006-2007, CSO Travis worked for the Minneapolis Police Department in hopes of joining the next MPD Academy class.
When he learned in December, 2007 that he would not be in the next MPD class, he applied to the Mounds View department and other law enforcement agencies. He gave them clearance to talk to his MPD supervisor, Sergeant Janice Callaway.
CSO Minke later alleged that he learned that Sergeant Callaway had given him negative reviews. CSO Minke alleged that, in the interview, Sergeant Callaway made statements that were defamatory, including “attacks on [his] honesty, integrity, character, work ethic, and performance.” CSO Minke further alleged that the statements caused Mounds View not to hire him.
CSO Minke sued the City and Sergeant Callaway for "interference with prospective economic gain" and "defamation."
The district court dismissed the "interference" claim but ruled that it would hear the "defamation" claim. The district court concluded that Sergeant Callaway’s allegedly defamatory statements were not absolutely privileged because, as a matter of fact, “providing recommendations for former CSOs [was] not part of [Sergeant] Callaway’s job duties.”
The court of appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion.
THE ISSUE: CSO Travis Minke passed the Peace Officer Licensing Exam which qualified him to apply for a position as a law enforcement officer. In 2006-2007, CSO Travis worked for the Minneapolis Police Department in hopes of joining the next MPD Academy class.
When he learned in December, 2007 that he would not be in the next MPD class, he applied to the Mounds View department and other law enforcement agencies. He gave them clearance to talk to his MPD supervisor, Sergeant Janice Callaway.
CSO Minke later alleged that he learned that Sergeant Callaway had given him negative reviews. CSO Minke alleged that, in the interview, Sergeant Callaway made statements that were defamatory, including “attacks on [his] honesty, integrity, character, work ethic, and performance.” CSO Minke further alleged that the statements caused Mounds View not to hire him.
CSO Minke sued the City and Sergeant Callaway for "interference with prospective economic gain" and "defamation."
The district court dismissed the "interference" claim but ruled that it would hear the "defamation" claim. The district court concluded that Sergeant Callaway’s allegedly defamatory statements were not absolutely privileged because, as a matter of fact, “providing recommendations for former CSOs [was] not part of [Sergeant] Callaway’s job duties.”
The court of appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion.
On April 9, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court and the Court of Appeals and granted a fair hearing on the "defamation" claim of CSO Minke. See here.
The Supreme Court held: "Absolute privilege does not extend to allegedly defamatory statements about an applicant for a peace officer position made during a background investigation. Affirmed."
The Supreme Court held: "Absolute privilege does not extend to allegedly defamatory statements about an applicant for a peace officer position made during a background investigation. Affirmed."
No comments:
Post a Comment