In the case of Weaver v. Deevers, 2021-Ohio-3791, the Eleventh District Appellate Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the parents of a student who made a complaint of harassment and hazing.
Here, the plaintiffs argued that summary judgment for the parents of a student who was allegedly hazed and harassed during band camp was improper. The Board of Education found that the plaintiffs had engaged in “fairly serious” misconduct. The plaintiffs then filed a complaint for money damages, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and loss of consortium against the parents. The trial court granted the parent’s motion for summary judgment.
The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to show that the statements made by the parents were made with actual malice such that the statements were defamatory in nature. The Court further reasoned that any statements made by the school administrators to parents of students of the district related to this issue were in the interest of the safety and welfare of students. As such, the Court of Appeals found that the administration’s statements were qualified privileged communications.
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 like the always-changing 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.