Laguerre v. Maurice
2020 NY Slip Op 07877 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A false statement imputing that a person is homosexual is not defamation per se, meaning a plaintiff must plead and prove special damages (specific economic loss) to sustain the cause of action.
Facts:
- Pierre Delor Laguerre was an elder in the Gethsemane SDA Church.
- Pastor Jean Renald Maurice was the pastor in charge of the church.
- Laguerre had a prior disagreement with Pastor Maurice over church-related issues.
- Pastor Maurice allegedly threatened to "crumble" Laguerre if he did not submit to him.
- Pastor Maurice stated before approximately 300 members of the church congregation that Laguerre was a homosexual.
- Pastor Maurice also stated that Laguerre viewed gay pornography on the church's computer.
- These statements were allegedly used to influence the church to vote to relieve Laguerre of his responsibilities and terminate his membership.
Procedural Posture:
- Pierre Delor Laguerre sued Pastor Jean Renald Maurice and the church in the Supreme Court of Kings County, a New York trial court, alleging, among other things, defamation per se.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the First Amendment and that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
- The Supreme Court (trial court) denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the defamation per se cause of action.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the trial court's order to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Department, an intermediate appellate court. Laguerre is the respondent.
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 false statement imputing that a person is homosexual constitute defamation per se under New York law?
Opinions:
Majority - Roman, J.
No. A false imputation of homosexuality does not constitute defamation per se. The court first rejected the defendants' argument that the First Amendment barred the suit, holding that the claim could be decided using neutral principles of law without entangling the court in religious doctrine, especially since the plaintiff was not challenging his expulsion from the church. The court also found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged malice to overcome the common-interest qualified privilege at the motion-to-dismiss stage. However, the court overturned its own 1984 precedent in Matherson v. Marchello, which had established that falsely imputing homosexuality was defamation per se. Citing the "veritable sea change in social attitudes" and the significant legal protections now afforded to gay individuals, such as anti-discrimination laws and the right to marriage established in Obergefell v. Hodges, the court concluded that the old rule was inconsistent with modern public policy. Because the statements do not fall into any of the per se categories, the plaintiff was required to plead special damages, which he failed to do.
Analysis:
This decision officially overturns decades-old precedent in New York's Second Department, aligning it with the Third Department's 2012 ruling in Yonaty v. Mincolla. It solidifies a modern, statewide standard that reflects evolving societal norms and legal frameworks concerning sexual orientation. The ruling marks a significant shift in defamation law, formally recognizing that being identified as homosexual is no longer presumed to expose a person to the same level of public contempt or ridicule as it was in the past. Consequently, future plaintiffs alleging defamation based on false imputations of homosexuality will face a higher burden, as they must now prove specific, quantifiable economic harm rather than relying on presumed damages.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Laguerre v. Maurice (2020)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"