ILNews

Court: Student complaints are absolute privilege

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
In a case of first impression, the Indiana Supreme Court held complaints made by current students under a university's anti-harassment policy are protected by absolute privilege.

The Supreme Court granted transfer to Virginia Hartman and Suzanne Swinehart v. Dr. Gabe Keri, No. 02S03-0706-CV-233, to determine whether Hartman and Swinehart's statements alleging sexual harassment against professor Keri were granted absolute privilege or qualified privilege.

Keri was a professor in the education department at Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne (IPFW), and Hartman and Swinehart were students who had taken courses Keri taught. In April 2003, Keri was informed his contract would not be renewed because of unsatisfactory teaching performance. The next month, Hartman and Swinehart filed formal complaints with Purdue's Affirmative Action Office at IPFW alleging sexual harassment by Keri.

The university assigned an investigator to interview Keri, Hartman, Swinehart, Keri's colleagues, and current and former students of Keri. The investigator concluded that statements from other students found Keri created a hostile environment, other students had wanted to come forward but were scared to make a report, and that Keri had harassed Hartman. The investigator recommended Keri be removed from teaching and away from contact of students.

The report's findings were reviewed and approved; Keri appealed to Purdue University's president, who upheld the decision. Keri then filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana against Purdue, alleging state tort claims and violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Purdue, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling.

Keri then filed suit in Allen Superior Court against Hartman and Swinehart, alleging libel, slander, and malicious interference with his employment contract. The two students moved for summary judgment, which the court granted on the malicious interference count; but it denied summary judgment on the libel and slander claims.

The students appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, deciding Hartman and Swinehart's statements were protected by an absolute privilege.

The Indiana Supreme Court today affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling, finding many courts have described the processes of educational institutions as quasi-judicial, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm. Even though Purdue's anti-harassment procedures don't have such formal apparatus as subpoena power, discovery, and proceedings under oath, as long as the process is reasonably transparent and fair, and allows the subject an opportunity to respond, it qualifies as quasi-judicial and allows for absolute privilege.

"Although Purdue's procedure may lack the trappings of a traditional court proceeding, it is orderly and reasonably fair, requires 'appropriate discipline' for those who file knowingly false or malicious complaints, and promises reasonable efforts to restore the reputation of anyone charged with discrimination or harassment that proves unsubstantiated," wrote Justice Boehm.

Absolute privilege is necessary for students like Hartman and Swinehart who file complaints according to university policy, or else it could have a chilling effect on legitimate complaints for fear of retaliation. To try to curb false or malicious reports by students, students who are found to have lied will be punished academically, which should curb false reporting, he wrote.

In a separate but concurring in result opinion, Justice Robert Rucker further explored what makes the university's procedures for addressing harassment complaints quasi-judicial in nature. Keri had argued he should have been allowed to subpoena witnesses and cross-examine witnesses for it to be a quasi-judicial process. Justice Rucker wrote based on the facts of the case, it's clear the university's administrative procedure is quasi-judicial because the school exercised judgment and discretion, determined facts to make a decision, made binding orders, affected Keri's property rights, examined witnesses, and enforced its decision. As such, the students' communications made pursuant to the anti-harassment policy are entitled to absolute privilege, he wrote.

The Supreme Court remanded to the trial court with instructions to grant Hartman and Swinehart's motion for summary judgment.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT