Tuesday, January 14, 2025

Special Motion To Dismiss Defamation Case Not Warranted

The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a special motion to dismiss a defamation claim should have been denied and remanded the case for further proceedings

This case arises from a workplace sexual harassment investigation. The plaintiff, David M. Sabatini, ran a laboratory at Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (Whitehead or institute). In 2020, Kristin A. Knouse, who was a fellow at Whitehead, told the institute's director, Ruth Lehmann, that Sabatini had sexually harassed her. Following Whitehead's investigation into the matter, which culminated in a report finding sexual harassment, Sabatini resigned and brought a complaint alleging that the defendants -- Knouse, Whitehead, and Lehmann -- made false statements about him. Knouse counterclaimed, generally alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and related torts as well as that the purpose of Sabatini's complaint was to smear her. Following special motions to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute, G. L. c. 231, § 59H, and motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the parties appeal from so much of an order (March 30, 2023 order) as denied Knouse's special motion to dismiss; denied in part and allowed in part Whitehead and Lehmann's special motion to dismiss; and dismissed for failure to state a claim (1) Sabatini's claims against Whitehead and Lehmann for defamation and tortious interference (counts II and 3 IV), (2) part of Sabatini's claim against the defendants for violation of G. L. c. 151B (count IX), and (3) Knouse's counterclaim against Sabatini for violation of G. L. c. 214, § 1C (counterclaim I).2 With respect to the special motions to dismiss, we conclude that Sabatini's claims have a substantial basis in conduct other than or in addition to protected petitioning activity and that the special motions to dismiss should have been denied in their entireties. We otherwise conclude that counts II and IV, part of count IX, and counterclaim I were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff was a tenured member of the MIT biology department; defendant Knouse was a doctoral student

While Knouse was a doctoral student, she and Sabatini sometimes socialized. Then, in 2018, Knouse started a fellowship at Whitehead, and she and Sabatini began a sexual relationship. While the relationship ended in 2019, Knouse sent text messages to Sabatini in January 2020 seeking to rekindle their relationship. Sabatini responded, asking Knouse to stop and stating that he wanted peace and needed space to figure things out. In early 2020 through the fall of 2020, Knouse began telling colleagues, both at Whitehead and MIT, that Sabatini had sexually harassed her. In October 2020, Knouse reported the alleged sexual harassment to Lehmann. Around that time, Whitehead hired a consultant to conduct a diversity survey at Whitehead. During the survey, some Whitehead employees reported concerns about Sabatini. In response, Whitehead hired the law firm of Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP (HAS) to investigate the culture within Sabatini's laboratory. The HAS investigators spoke with Knouse and other members of the Whitehead community.  In interviews with the HAS investigators, Knouse repeated her allegations that Sabatini had sexually harassed her.

On August 13, 2021, HAS sent a report to Whitehead finding that Sabatini had committed sexual harassment. Whitehead forwarded the report to MIT and HHMI. On August 19, Whitehead provided Sabatini with a copy of the report. On August 20, Sabatini resigned after learning that Whitehead was about to terminate his employment.6 Also on August 20, Lehmann sent an email message to the Whitehead community stating that Sabatini had violated Whitehead's policies on sexual harassment and was no longer associated with Whitehead. The message was then circulated and reported in the news. Thereafter, Whitehead and Lehmann also communicated with scientific journals where Sabatini had articles pending, asking the journals to convey that Sabatini was no longer associated with Whitehead and implying that Sabatini had engaged in misconduct.

While not alleged in Sabatini's complaint, it is undisputed for purposes of this appeal that Whitehead also communicated with NIH regarding Sabatini. On August 24, Whitehead informed NIH that Sabatini no longer worked there. On August 27, NIH sent Whitehead a letter stating that it had learned of 7 Sabatini's departure from the news and requesting additional information.  Whitehead responded on September 21. Whitehead's response outlined the events leading to its decision to hire HAS to conduct an investigation; stated that the investigation resulted in a finding of sexual harassment; and outlined the remedial steps that Whitehead had taken in response, including accepting Sabatini's notice of resignation.

Anti-SLAPP

The defendants argue that their alleged conduct -- including Knouse's reports to colleagues, Lehmann, and the HAS investigators that Sabatini had sexually harassed her; Whitehead's investigation of those reports; and the subsequent sharing of the finding that Sabatini had committed sexual harassment -- constituted protected petitioning activity and that all of Sabatini's claims should have been dismissed. We disagree.

Dismissed claims

Counts II and IV of Sabatini's complaint asserted claims for defamation and tortious interference against Whitehead and Lehmann. The motion judge dismissed these claims on the basis that they turned on communications that were conditionally privileged. We agree.

...Where Sabatini did not allege facts showing that he engaged in a protected activity, he did not assert a prima facie case for retaliation. Accordingly, so much of his claim as alleged that Knouse committed retaliation and that Whitehead and Lehmann aided and abetted Knouse in committing retaliation was properly dismissed.

Conclusion

We reverse so much of the March 30, 2023 order as allowed in part Whitehead and Lehmann's special motion to dismiss. In all other respects, we affirm. The matter is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

(Mike Frisch)

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2025/01/special-motion-to-dismiss-defamation-case-not-warranted.html

Current Affairs | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment