In the case of Gallow v. Pittis, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150119, an Ohio federal district court held that public employees are not entitled to a name-clearing hearing regarding alleged defamation unless the alleged defamation is connected to that employee’s actual termination.
In this case, a superintendent publicly accused a teacher of falsifying time sheets and double billing. The superintendent also stated that the superintendent would not recommend renewing most of the teacher’s supplemental contracts, which would naturally expire/nonrenew at the end of the school year. It is important to note that the superintendent did not recommend termination of the teacher’s regular employment contract.
In response to not being reemployed under all supplemental contracts, the teacher requested a name-clearing hearing and brought legal action against the school board and superintendent when the requested name-clearing hearing was denied. Specifically, the teacher argued that the denial of a name-clearing hearing violated the teacher’s liberty rights in the teacher’s reputation, good name, honor, and integrity. In response, the school board and superintendent argued that a claim of defamation requires a “termination” and the expiration/nonrenewal of the teacher’s supplemental contracts did not constitute “termination.”
The federal district court determined that a claim of defamation requires a complete termination in addition to a defamatory publication. The federal district court further held that any change in employment besides complete termination – such as non-renewal of a supplemental contract – does not entitle a public employee to a name-clearing hearing because – as stated by the federal district court – “’termination’ means termination.”
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is always changing like the Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.