Photo of Student Collaboration by Brittany Collins
Accused of incompetence, an educator contemplates filing a defamation suit to preserve her credibility and occupation. In an attempt to prove libel, all elements are evaluated.
Upon completion of her 7th year as an educator, Indianapolis 6th-8th grade exceptional learners teacher Sharon Frazier received an unpleasant written document on behalf of her school district.
“When I returned to work after a FMLA absence, there was a letter in my mailbox stating that my teacher contract was being terminated based on incompetence and other good and just cause,” recalls Frazier.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has drastically transformed the educational landscape. The legislation, signed by President Bush was designed to improve student achievement regardless of race and income level as well as hold states and schools more accountable for student progress. Part of this law states the importance of having effective teachers in every classroom. Although the term effective is broad, each state has a list of standards that must be followed in classroom instruction. However, in the event that these standards are unmet, a teacher can be deemed incompetent.
“The letter infuriated me,” said Frazier. The term incompetent angered me even more because the allegations were untrue. I’ve definitely considered filing a defamation lawsuit as the allegations may potentially tarnish my professional credibility.”
Before commencing defamation action, evaluating individual circumstances can provide a great deal of benefits. Highlighting latent challenges may help to avoid unfavorable outcomes. One issue with defamation cases is the difficulty to win and claim substantial damages. An additional concern is the probability of being unable to prove all elements of defamation. Upon litigation proceedings, the plaintiff should also determine how specific state laws often apply.
Under Indiana law, the elements of defamation claim are:
- a communication with defamatory imputation;
- malice;
- publication; and
- damages.
However, according to Expert Law, a defense recognized in most jurisdictions is opinion. If the person (defendant) makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. In the official notice, an administrator notes reasoning for incompetence by addressing Frazier’s teaching performance, which states that: “Your performance as teacher has not been up to acceptable standards and we have lost trust and confidence in your ability to carry out the duties required as a teacher.”
Therefore, based on this context that is provided by an employer, the statement is presented as factual and less likely to be regarded as opinion. Frazier claims that the allegations are false as she made the initiative to improve her performance and the success can be proven in her students’ NWEA Scores.
Photo of Student Lockers by Brittany Collins
“I’ve basically been accused of being ineffective yet, they have shown no proof to back this up,” added Frazier. I work very hard to maintain a climate that supports productive learning. I have spent weekends and some holidays working at school to ensure that I provide the very best for my students.” Frazier also claims that several staff members are aware of the content described in the letter, which provides evidence that the defamatory statements were communicated to a third party.
She also faces the probability of parents gaining access to her online profile and teaching credentials as provided by the school district. This exposes the allegations because the profile contains information such as educational history, work experience, percentage of students passing state standardize tests, staff comments regarding classroom environment instruction as well as a 1-5 rating system that scores a teacher’s effectiveness.
As defined by Indiana law, actual malice refers to private figures if the disputed statements are newsworthy or involve matters of public concern. Although it is not present with this case as an additional element of a defamation claim, the plaintiff will have to prove significant damages. As a result, the damages reflect an attack on a persons’ professional character or standing thus Frazier will have to prove injury to reputation.
As previously mentioned, defamation suits may involve challenges due to the inability to prove all elements. As “Other good and just cause is used as grounds for possible termination of Frazier’s teaching contract, the Board of Education demonstrates its disapproval of her overall performance. Furthermore, the administrator states that her actions have “stained the conscience of what is right in education and what is common in the actions of honest educators.” If viewed in a manner that is not provably true of false, the opinion defense protects against claims of defamation. Therefore, Frazier will not have a case.
