Barnett v. Mobile County Personnel Bd.
536 So. 2d 46 · Supreme Court of Alabama · 1988
Facts
Rose Barnett, a town clerk, issued unauthorized pay raises and falsified payroll reports, claiming she acted under Mayor Gartman's direction, which Gartman denied. After the scheme was discovered, Board director Richardson sent a letter implying Barnett's involvement in fraud, and Mayor Gartman allegedly accused Barnett of lying and keeping "two sets of books." Barnett sued Richardson and Gartman for defamation, and the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants.
Issue
The primary issues are whether Board director Richardson's statement implying fraud was protected by an absolute privilege as a communication preliminary to a judicial proceeding, and whether Mayor Gartman's alleged defamatory statements were protected by a qualified privilege, which Barnett failed to overcome with evidence of actual malice.
Holding
The court affirmed the summary judgments for Richardson and Gartman, finding Richardson's statement absolutely privileged as it related to a contemplated judicial proceeding. Mayor Gartman's statements were protected by a qualified privilege, which Barnett, as a public official, failed to overcome by proving actual malice with clear and convincing evidence.
Rule
Defamatory statements made preliminary to a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged if related to a proceeding contemplated in good faith. A qualified privilege protects statements made in good faith to protect one's interest or a common interest, but it can be defeated by proof of actual malice. For public officials, actual malice requires clear and convincing evidence of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.