Font Size: 
Jury Says No to Libel Claim Over Truthful E-Mail
The National Law Journal
October 13, 2009
Image: Photodisc Green
It's the libel case that set free speech advocates reeling: Noonan v. Staples Inc. In February a federal appeals court held that truth is not always an absolute defense to claims of libel -- and kicked the case back to a jury.
Now the people have spoken. Late last week, a Massachusetts jury found that a mass e-mail sent out by Staples about an employee who was fired for violating the company's travel and expense policy was not sent with actual malice.
The jury issued its verdict on Oct. 8, eight months after the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals kept alive former Staples manager Alan Noonan's lawsuit, which sought to hold Staples liable for the humiliation caused by the e-mail even though the information in the e-mail was true. The court ruled that the e-mail could give rise to a libel claim because it singled him out and humiliated him.
The verdict brings some relief to First Amendment advocates. "It's reassuring to see that at least the jury came to the right decision," said Lawrence Walters of the Orlando, Fla., office of Los Angeles-based Weston Garrou Walters & Mooney, who suggests the verdict supports the well-established doctrine of truth as an absolute defense to libel. "Any attempt to whittle away at that concept undermines the free speech protections," said Walters, who runs the Web site FirstAmendment.com.
Nonetheless, the 1st Circuit ruling is out there and carries significant legal weight, noted Robert Ambrogi, a Rockport, Mass., solo practitioner who runs the Media Law blog and is executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association. Ambrogi said the jury verdict is good news for employers, affirming that they can convey truthful information about disciplinary issues to employees "and not necessarily end up in hot water." But the 1st Circuit decision still has a lot of journalists on edge, he said.
The 1st Circuit decision relied on a 1902 Massachusetts law that provided truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" on the part of a defendant in publishing a statement.
And what Staples did showed actual malice, said Richard Gelb of Boston's Gelb & Gelb, who represented the plaintiff in the Staples case. Gelb said he plans to appeal, arguing that the judge's interpretation of actual malice was too narrow.
Gelb contends the Staples manager who sent out the mass e-mail had an ulterior motive. He said that Staples had many employees who weren't following credit card and travel policies, and that his client was singled out. "He was the scapegoat," Gelb said.
Lynn Kappelman of the Boston office of Chicago-based Seyfarth Shaw, who represented Staples, declined comment.
