Liu v. Northwestern University
2015 WL 328213, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8751, 78 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements that are broad, conclusory, and subjective, and which lack a verifiable factual context, are considered non-actionable opinions and cannot form the basis of a defamation claim.
Facts:
- Annie Liu, a law student at Northwestern University, had diagnosed medical conditions including endometriosis, which required academic accommodations.
- In the spring of 2013, Liu experienced computer malfunctions and a flare-up of her medical condition near her final exams, prompting her to request an exam delay from Associate Dean Clifford Zimmerman.
- After Liu provided doctors' notes, Zimmerman granted a limited extension but set a rigid schedule and warned against further requests.
- On May 2, 2013, Zimmerman sent an email to 23 university faculty and staff members stating that Liu 'has been uncooperative, evasive, and not forthcoming in her representations to law school and University personnel' and was 'actively looking for anyone who will give her a different answer.'
- Zimmerman denied further extensions requested by Liu's doctor, required Liu to take an exam while in severe pain, and later imposed failing grades and an enrollment hold when she missed a paper deadline.
- A representative from Northwestern Law School contacted Dr. Flavio Arana, Liu's interim psychiatrist, to discuss her academic performance.
- After returning from maternity leave, Liu’s primary psychiatrist, Dr. Elise Rehn, terminated her physician-patient relationship with Liu.
Procedural Posture:
- Annie Liu filed a fifteen-count complaint against Northwestern University and its Associate Dean, Clifford Zimmerman, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss several counts of the complaint, including breach of contract (Count XI), defamation (Count XIII), public disclosure of private facts (Count XIV), and tortious interference with contractual relations (Count XV).
- The U.S. District Court is ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss these specific counts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a dean's statements in an email describing a student as 'uncooperative, evasive, and not forthcoming' constitute non-actionable opinion rather than an actionable defamatory statement of fact?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Sara L. Ellis
Yes, the dean's statements constitute non-actionable opinion. For a statement to be defamatory, it must be an assertion of fact, not opinion. The court determines whether a statement is fact or opinion by considering if the words have a precise meaning, if the context negates the impression of a factual assertion, and if the statement is objectively verifiable. Here, terms like 'uncooperative, evasive, and not forthcoming' are broad, conclusory, and subjective. Zimmerman's email provided no specific factual context to support these characterizations, making them impossible to prove true or false. Unlike actionable statements that link an opinion to specific, verifiable conduct, Zimmerman's assertions were general criticisms that amount to protected opinion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant legal distinction between fact and opinion in defamation law, establishing a high bar for plaintiffs alleging defamation based on subjective characterizations. The ruling clarifies that for a negative statement to be actionable, it must contain or be based on objectively verifiable facts, not just broad, conclusory terms. This precedent offers protection for expressions of opinion in academic and professional settings, but it also guides potential plaintiffs to focus their claims on specific, provably false factual assertions rather than general negative assessments.
