Rubin, H. v. CBS Broadcasting Inc.
45 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2341, 2017 Pa. Super. 292, 170 A.3d 560 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a defamation claim to be dismissed on the pleadings under the substantial truth doctrine, the gist or sting of the allegedly defamatory statement must not be materially different from the literal truth; a statement that carries a greater defamatory sting than the facts support is not substantially true.
Facts:
- Howard Rubin was employed as a school police officer at the Multi-Cultural Academy Charter School (MACS).
- Rubin had previously received a written warning about 'fraternizing with minors' and acknowledged that such behavior would not be tolerated.
- In September 2014, MACS suspended Rubin indefinitely after 'serious allegations' were made against him, which were under investigation by both police and the school.
- On September 13, 2014, MACS's principal sent Rubin a termination letter.
- The letter stated Rubin was terminated for behavior 'unbecoming of a school police officer' and specifically for his 'failure to honor' the expectation regarding fraternization with minors.
- The termination letter explicitly noted that the school had 'yet to complete' its own investigation into the allegations.
- On September 29, 2014, CBS Broadcasting Inc. aired a news report stating that Rubin was fired 'over allegations of child sexual abuse' and was a suspect in the abuse of an underage male student.
- The following day, CBS aired a correction stating that the school's principal denied Rubin was fired over abuse allegations and that his separation from the school was unrelated to any such allegations.
Procedural Posture:
- Howard Rubin filed an amended complaint for defamation and false light invasion of privacy against CBS Broadcasting Inc. in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (a trial court).
- CBS filed an answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing its report was substantially true and therefore not actionable.
- The trial court granted CBS's motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Rubin's lawsuit.
- Howard Rubin, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a news report stating that a school employee was fired 'over allegations of child sexual abuse' substantially true as a matter of law when the employee's termination letter cited his 'failure to honor' a prior warning about 'fraternizing with minors' as the reason for dismissal?
Opinions:
Majority - Moulton, J.
No. The news report is not substantially true as a matter of law because a material difference exists between the 'gist' of the broadcast and the stated reason for the employee's termination. To survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a plaintiff must show that the inaccuracies in a report render its substance and 'gist' untrue. The court reasoned that a termination for 'allegations of child sexual abuse' carries a significantly greater defamatory 'sting' in the minds of viewers than a termination for violating a directive about 'fraternizing with minors.' The former could imply the school investigated and credited the allegations, a conclusion the termination letter itself disavowed. Because the pleadings do not establish that the report was substantially true, and it is too early to determine whether Rubin can prove CBS acted with the requisite fault (negligence or malice), the case cannot be dismissed at this stage and must proceed to discovery.
Analysis:
This decision underscores the limits of the substantial truth doctrine in defamation law, particularly at the pleading stage. It establishes that courts may find a material difference in the defamatory 'sting' between facially similar accusations, preventing media defendants from securing an early dismissal. The ruling protects a plaintiff's right to discovery to prove the elements of falsity and fault when the defendant's publication could be interpreted as being more damaging than the literal truth. This precedent makes it more difficult for media outlets to summarily dispose of defamation cases where the precise characterization of events, rather than the underlying events themselves, is in dispute.
