Angela Horne v. WTVR, LLC
893 F.3d 201 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For defamation claims, a government employee holding a position with apparent substantial responsibility for governmental affairs is considered a public official and must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with 'actual malice'—knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false—to recover damages.
Facts:
- On July 19, 2014, Angela Engle Horne applied for the Director of Budget & Finance position for the Prince George County School Board.
- Horne disclosed on her job application that she had a prior felony conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
- Dr. Bobby Browder, the then-superintendent, interviewed Horne and stated her prior felony conviction would not hinder her hiring.
- Horne was hired for the position and began employment on September 29, 2014.
- On February 10, 2015, Horne was terminated because Virginia law (Va. Code § 22.1-296.1(A)) prohibits school systems from hiring convicted felons.
- On February 11 or 12, 2015, WTVR senior reporter Wayne Covil received a tip from a familiar, confidential source that a felon had been hired and fired from the Prince George County School Board.
- Covil interviewed Dr. Browder, who could not discuss personnel matters but reviewed the Virginia School Law Deskbook with Covil, pointing out that providing false information on an application was a Class 1 misdemeanor, leading Covil to believe Browder implied the felon had lied.
- On February 13, 2015, WTVR aired a news story titled 'Source: Convicted felon worked at school board office in Central Va.,' which implied the unidentified felon had lied on her job application by failing to disclose her conviction.
Procedural Posture:
- Angela Engle Horne filed a defamation action against WTVR, LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under diversity jurisdiction.
- Horne filed a pre-trial motion to compel WTVR to disclose the identity of its confidential source, which the district court denied.
- WTVR moved to have Horne deemed a 'public official' and 'limited purpose public figure' for the defamation claim; the district court granted the motion, deeming Horne a 'public official' but declining to rule on 'limited purpose public figure' status.
- WTVR moved for summary judgment, arguing the news story was not reasonably capable of defaming Horne and was protected by the fair report privilege; the district court denied this motion.
- The case proceeded to trial, and at the close of evidence, WTVR moved for a directed verdict.
- The district court granted WTVR’s motion for a directed verdict, concluding that Horne failed to provide sufficient evidence that WTVR acted with 'actual malice'.
- Horne appealed the district court's decision, arguing error in deeming her a public official, granting the directed verdict, and denying her motion to compel.
- WTVR cross-appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school system's Director of Budget & Finance, whose duties include managing financial affairs and preparing the annual budget, qualify as a 'public official' for defamation purposes, requiring her to prove 'actual malice' on the part of a media defendant, and did the district court err in finding insufficient evidence of such malice or in denying a motion to compel a confidential source?
Opinions:
Majority - Floyd, Circuit Judge
Yes, the district court correctly determined that Angela Engle Horne was a public official for purposes of her defamation claim, requiring her to prove actual malice, and it did not err in granting a directed verdict for WTVR because she failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual malice, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying her motion to compel a confidential source. The court affirmed the district court's decision, dismissing WTVR’s cross-appeal as moot. First, the court held that Horne was a 'public official' because her position as Director of Budget & Finance conveyed apparent substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs. Citing Rosenblatt v. Baer, the court reasoned that her title and job description (managing financial, budgetary, and purchasing affairs for a nearly $60 million budget, negotiating with providers, planning annual budgets) 'invited public scrutiny and discussion of the person holding it' and provided an 'independent interest in the qualifications and performance of the person' in that position. The court highlighted that a criminal charge (lying on an application) related to a public official's fitness for office, thereby satisfying the 'official conduct' requirement for applying the actual malice standard under Garrison v. Louisiana and Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy. Second, the court found Horne failed to provide sufficient evidence that WTVR acted with 'actual malice' to proceed to a jury. Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and St. Amant v. Thompson, actual malice requires proof of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, which entails a 'high degree of awareness of probable falsity.' The court emphasized that WTVR had a history of working with and trusting Superintendent Browder and Covil’s confidential source. Mere failure to investigate, absent 'obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports,' does not constitute reckless conduct. The anonymous email and internal WTVR communications did not provide clear and convincing evidence of such doubt or a high awareness of probable falsity. The court also noted that it was illogical for WTVR to intentionally ignore a 'better story' (school knowingly hired a felon) to avoid re-doing the current story, further weakening the claim of actual malice. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Horne’s pre-trial motion to compel the disclosure of WTVR’s confidential source. Applying the three-part test from LaRouche v. Nat’l Broad. Co., Inc. (relevance, alternative means, compelling interest), the court found that Horne had not demonstrated a sufficiently compelling interest because her claim of discovering evidence of actual malice through the source's identity was speculative.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high burden on public officials bringing defamation claims, particularly the difficulty in proving 'actual malice' against media defendants. It clarifies that a government employee's title and job responsibilities, even if administrative, can create sufficient 'apparent substantial responsibility' to warrant public official status. Furthermore, the ruling underscores the strong protection afforded by the journalist's privilege, making it challenging for plaintiffs to compel disclosure of confidential sources without compelling, non-speculative justification, especially when the core facts of the story are undisputed.
