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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT