By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
The Court of Appeals ruled on a case of defamation in a dispute regarding negative campaign materials, finding the subject caught in the crossfire was not defamed in the process.
In Sharon Schram v. Dow Silicones Corporation and Christian Valasquez (Docket No. 370019), Schram found herself referenced during a bitter Republican primary between then-Rep. Annette Glenn and Valasquez for 35th Senate District seat.
Schram had worked under Valasquez at Dow Corning before he jumped into politics. She had previously sued the company for sex and disability discrimination. A federal court did not settle the debate on whether Schram faced discrimination.
Glenn released negative mailers attacking Valasquez during the primary, painting him as a defendant in the discrimination case filed by Schram, asking voters to decide if Valasquez would “ensure men and women are treated equally under the law.” The mailer insisted Valasquez had an active role in the lawsuit and Schram’s firing.
Valasquez publicly defended himself on social media and in the media, calling the mailer an “untruth,” claiming he was merely a witness in the case and did not have anything to do with firing Schram.
By calling the mailer false, Schram then filed a lawsuit on defamation because she believed he was saying her claims in the lawsuit were false and denied her perspective.
In a published decision written by Judge Brock Swartzle, the court sided with a trial court that said Valasquez’s defense was not defamatory of Schram but instead a subjective opinion on his own involvement in the case.
She also claimed that his likes on posts defending him were defamatory as well. Swartzle wrote that “the mere ‘like’-ing of a purported defamatory statement on social media is not sufficient for republication purpose.”
Swartzle also wrote that his statements clearly target Glenn and her campaign, not Schram.
“Considered together, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Velasquez acted in good faith and without actual malice to Schram when he said that the Glenn campaign mailer was ‘an untruth’ and ‘misleading and untrue.’ A reasonable reader would not expect that someone involved in a lawsuit—even as a nonparty—would show the objectivity of a judge when talking about the lawsuit,” Swartzle wrote. “In other words, the notion that opposing sides in a lawsuit might view and describe contested evidence in different lights can hardly be called defamatory or false light, without more.”
Swartzle continued that Valasquez’s statements could “suggest that some or all of the claims in the federal lawsuit were mistaken, as not every untrue statement uttered by someone necessarily means that the person is a liar” and “untrue statements can be made on the basis of incomplete information, an honest misperception.”
Judges Kristina Robinson Garrett and Randy Wallace also affirmed the decision.
Gongwer News Service
The Court of Appeals ruled on a case of defamation in a dispute regarding negative campaign materials, finding the subject caught in the crossfire was not defamed in the process.
In Sharon Schram v. Dow Silicones Corporation and Christian Valasquez (Docket No. 370019), Schram found herself referenced during a bitter Republican primary between then-Rep. Annette Glenn and Valasquez for 35th Senate District seat.
Schram had worked under Valasquez at Dow Corning before he jumped into politics. She had previously sued the company for sex and disability discrimination. A federal court did not settle the debate on whether Schram faced discrimination.
Glenn released negative mailers attacking Valasquez during the primary, painting him as a defendant in the discrimination case filed by Schram, asking voters to decide if Valasquez would “ensure men and women are treated equally under the law.” The mailer insisted Valasquez had an active role in the lawsuit and Schram’s firing.
Valasquez publicly defended himself on social media and in the media, calling the mailer an “untruth,” claiming he was merely a witness in the case and did not have anything to do with firing Schram.
By calling the mailer false, Schram then filed a lawsuit on defamation because she believed he was saying her claims in the lawsuit were false and denied her perspective.
In a published decision written by Judge Brock Swartzle, the court sided with a trial court that said Valasquez’s defense was not defamatory of Schram but instead a subjective opinion on his own involvement in the case.
She also claimed that his likes on posts defending him were defamatory as well. Swartzle wrote that “the mere ‘like’-ing of a purported defamatory statement on social media is not sufficient for republication purpose.”
Swartzle also wrote that his statements clearly target Glenn and her campaign, not Schram.
“Considered together, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Velasquez acted in good faith and without actual malice to Schram when he said that the Glenn campaign mailer was ‘an untruth’ and ‘misleading and untrue.’ A reasonable reader would not expect that someone involved in a lawsuit—even as a nonparty—would show the objectivity of a judge when talking about the lawsuit,” Swartzle wrote. “In other words, the notion that opposing sides in a lawsuit might view and describe contested evidence in different lights can hardly be called defamatory or false light, without more.”
Swartzle continued that Valasquez’s statements could “suggest that some or all of the claims in the federal lawsuit were mistaken, as not every untrue statement uttered by someone necessarily means that the person is a liar” and “untrue statements can be made on the basis of incomplete information, an honest misperception.”
Judges Kristina Robinson Garrett and Randy Wallace also affirmed the decision.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
