ILNews

COA rules against former Junior Achievement boss in defamation suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that a central Indiana organization and its president did not defame the former president of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana or tortiously interfere with a business relationship.

Jeffrey Miller and his wife, Cynthia, sued numerous parties in March 2010, including the Central Indiana Community Foundation Inc. and Brian Payne. Miller argued in part that Payne defamed him and caused him to not be offered a job with the city of Indianapolis.

The allegations are based on conversation Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard’s former chief-of staff, Chris Cotterill, had with Payne March 9, 2010, at a meeting about the Indianapolis Cultural Trail. Cotterill had been in discussions with Miller about any potential jobs in the city’s office, but nothing had been offered.

Cotterill wanted to speak with Payne to confirm information his wife told him about the Junior Achievement of Central Indiana being the subject of an audit. Miller served as president of JACI from 1994 until he retired in 2008. He also served as president of JACI’s foundation, known as Experiential Learning and Entrepreneurship Federation until February 2010.

The construction of an Ivy Tech culinary project initiated during Miller’s time as JACI president came to a halt in early 2010 after the Glick Fund at Central Indiana Community Foundation, stopped paying on a $2 million grant, pending an audit.

During the brief March 2010 discussion, Payne confirmed to Cotterill that CICF was in the process of auditing JACI due to the Glicks’ concerns of money being spent in ways not consistent with the terms of the grant, misappropriation of funds, or money moving around in an improper manner. Cotterill, however, testified during his deposition that Payne never told him that Miller was the one who may have misappropriated funds or moved money around improperly.

At the time of this conversation, there was an audit ongoing, so the statements were true. There is no evidence that Payne made any comments regarding Miller that could be considered defamatory or that Payne invaded Miller’s privacy by placing him in a false light, the appeals court held in Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller v. Central Indiana Community Foundation, Inc., and Brian Payne, 49A04-1309-PL-451.

The designated evidence also shows that Payne did not commit any unjustified interference with an alleged business relationship between the city of Indianapolis and Miller. Payne did not seek out Cotterill; it was Cotterrill who wanted to verify the information his wife had told him. Also, Cotterill had concerns prior to learning of the audit that Miller was telling people that he would be working for the mayor before any employment offer had been extended. No offer was ever made.

The Millers have sued 17 parties over comments – both spoken and written – that they claim are defamatory. In April, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Federal Express Corp. and the 500 Festival Inc.

Some of those comments come from anonymous commenters on news websites and message boards.  The action involving those defendants was an issue of first impression for the courts.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT