From Mason v. American Prospect, Inc., decided yesterday by Judge Loren L. AliKhan (D.D.C.):
Plaintiff Chataquoa Nicole Mason brings this action against Defendants The American Prospect (“TAP“) and Julianne McShane. Dr. Mason alleges that TAP and Ms. McShane defamed her and tortiously interfered with her business relations when they published an article (written and reported by Ms. McShane) covering her tenure as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research….
IWPR is a “national think tank” that “build[s] evidence to shape policies that grow women’s power and influence, close inequality gaps, and improve the economic well-being of families.” The organization was founded by Dr. Heidi Hartmann, who served as its long-time President and Chief Executive Officer. In 2019, IWPR’s Board of Directors removed Dr. Hartmann from these roles because she was “abusing staff and otherwise creating a toxic work environment, engaging in racist behavior … and failing to adequately fundraise.”
IWPR searched for a new President and Chief Executive Officer and hired Dr. Mason in fall 2019. Dr. Mason is an African American woman who holds a Ph.D. in Political Science, boasts “more than twenty years of research and advocacy experience focused on women’s economic security,” and has a “long track record of success in leadership positions.” She entered her new role in a time of tumult, facing budget shortfalls, staff discontentment, and racism. Nevertheless, “she worked tirelessly to achieve major goals,” like “dealing with the toxic work environment,” raising sorely needed funds (including closing a budget shortfall of more than one million dollars), and increasing the public profile of the organization. Dr. Mason “participate[d] in public forums and networking events,” “spearhead[ed] two major conferences,” won an industry award, and “was named one of the World’s Greatest Leaders by Fortune Magazine.” …
At some point, Ms. McShane, a freelance reporter, began investigating Dr. Mason’s leadership of IWPR…. In November 2022, TAP published the article, titled “A Women’s Policy Giant Struggles Amid New Leadership,” https://perma.cc/P9CY-3V3V. The article highlighted several of Dr. Mason’s and IWPR’s key accomplishments, including her recognition by Fortune magazine and IWPR’s successful fundraising efforts. The article also includes the following statements relevant to Dr. Mason’s claims:
“[W]ithin weeks after this reporter sent Mason and two executive board members separate lists of detailed questions based on the reporting in this story, a law firm [was] retained by the board to assist with an independent review of IWPR’s workplace environment [and] began contacting former staffers for interviews, according to three sources.” “[Dr.] Mason fired Childers last fall after seven years at the organization … [and] did not respond to a specific inquiry about why Childers was fired.” “[R]ecords and interviews with former staffers suggest that Mason has struggled to [‘get on a winning team’ or ‘follow through on projects and complete tasks’] during her nearly three years leading IWPR, instead contributing to a toxic work environment that led them to leave the organization.” “[IWPR]’s turnover rate was 80 percent last year and is 72 percent [UPDATE: 78 percent] so far this year, according to the Prospect‘s analysis of staff departures. IWPR currently has only three full-time researchers on staff, compared to 14 who were on staff in the fall of 2020, according to a written record of a board meeting from that time.” “[Dr.] Mason did not respond to a question from the Prospect about what she believes has caused the turnover [of employees].” “[Michelle Cueller Hawks] worked alone and struggled to get Mason’s attention, even though Mason was her direct supervisor[.] When she and Mason did interact, it was often fraught …. [Cuellar] said Mason sometimes had what [other employees] considered unfair expectations that she sometimes expressed by screaming at staffers, or in other demeaning ways.” “Former staffers say the high turnover has undermined the organization’s capacity to conduct the research it once pioneered—and records of board meetings show Mason has admitted as much.” “Representatives for the Kresge Foundation, the Children’s Defense Fund, and the Women’s Foundation of Florida declined requests for comment on the IWPR projects they funded.” “Records of board meetings show that at least four current and one former board member have raised concerns about staffing and turnover and offered to intervene…. [B]oard member Joan Marsh … asked ‘if the staffing challenges undermine[] the commitments made to our funders,’ according to a written summary of the meeting.” “None of IWPR’s six research priority areas, including the Center for the Economics of Reproductive Health, currently have leaders…. IWPR was supposed to produce three original research reports using the initial Hewlett grant money … [b]ut none of those reports were released after the center’s founding director left IWPR in March 2020.” “IWPR’s Student Parent Success Initiative … , [which] launched in 2010 with $1 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, … has remained unstaffed since its last staffer, a research associate, left in February.” “[The SPSI’s] Student Parent Policy Working Group has seemingly disbanded.” “IWPR received a $225,000 donation from Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Washington Commanders football team, according to notes from a board meeting.”
… After publication, individuals associated with TAP and anonymous sources from the article “contacted IWPR’s Board, funders, and other key stakeholders to disparage Dr. Mason.” IWPR employees also began to “question[] Dr. Mason’s leadership … due to the controversy.” In January 2023, roughly two months after the article’s publication, IWPR’s Board fired Dr. Mason.
Since then, Dr. Mason has been unable to find employment. In addition to incurring expenses to rehabilitate her reputation, she “has also suffered severe emotional distress” as a result of the article’s publication.
Mason sued for defamation and a related tort, and the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It found that some of the statements were substantially true or opinion, but “that the article’s statements about the turnover rate and lack of staffing were sufficiently false and defamatory” to be potentially actionable if the proper mental state were shown.
But the court also held that, even as to those statements, Mason was a “limited public figure” and thus had to prove “actual malice”—i.e., knowing or reckless falsehood—which she could not do:
In the defamation context, “[t]he applicable fault standard ‘turns upon whether the plaintiff is a public or a private figure.'” Private figures may recover if the defendant is negligent. But public figures must meet the more demanding “actual malice” standard of liability—meaning they acted “with knowledge that [the relevant statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” … Public figures “have voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehood” and boast increased access to media to “counteract false statements.” …
There are three types of plaintiffs who must establish actual malice in a defamation suit:
(1) a public official; (2) an individual who “achieve[s] such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts,” referred to as a general-purpose public figure; and (3) “[m]ore commonly, an individual [who] voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues,” i.e., a limited-purpose public figure.
… A limited-purpose public figure takes on a central role in a particular public controversy, “either by virtue of their own voluntary actions or involuntarily” through her involvement in the controversy at hand….. [T]here is an ongoing public controversy related to gender equity and women’s roles in the workforce, that Dr. Mason assumed a prominent role in that controversy, and that the challenged statements (and article as a whole) relate to her role in the controversy….
Gender equity in the workplace qualifies [as an existing public controversy]. The judicially noticeable articles demonstrate widespread news coverage on this topic, and such issues clearly impact the day-to-day lives of many individuals who are “not direct participants” in the ongoing debate…
A plaintiff voluntarily becomes a limited-purpose public figure when she “achieve[s] a special prominence in the debate” and “tr[ies] to influence the outcome or could … have an impact on its resolution.” Greater access to media is an indicator of public figure status, as is regular and continuing public outreach.
Dr. Mason is a public figure in the controversy. She gained significant public prominence when she assumed the role of President and Chief Executive Officer of IWPR, a nonprofit that is actively involved in increasing gender equality in the workplace. Even before taking on this role, Dr. Mason had “more than twenty years of research and advocacy experience focused on women’s economic security.” And upon joining IWPR, she “substantially raised [the organization’s] public profile,” “participate[d] in public forums and networking events,” and “spearhead[ed] two major conferences.” She even won an industry award and “was named one of the World’s Greatest Leaders by Fortune Magazine.” By virtue of her role, experience, and activities, Dr. Mason was a prominent figure promoting gender equality in the workplace….
The statements “must be ‘germane to the plaintiff’s participation in the controversy.'” “This [approach] ensures that publishers cannot use an individual’s prominence in one area of public life to justify publishing negligent falsehoods about an unrelated aspect of the plaintiff’s life.”
The allegedly defamatory statements at issue here are germane to the controversy. Many of Dr. Mason’s qualms with the article relate to statements about her ability to lead IWPR and, in turn, the organization’s ability to fulfill its goals to promote gender equity in the workplace. That is certainly germane to the broader controversy. Dr. Mason argues that the statements “concern IWPR’s internal affairs” and “d[o] not involve any gender equity issues, i.e., issues involving disparate treatment of men and women.” That misunderstands the test. “Statements, including those highlighting a plaintiff’s ‘talents, education, experience, and motives,’ can be germane.” The allegedly defamatory statements relate to Dr. Mason’s experience and ability to effectively advocate on issues of gender equality. They are plainly germane….
The post Gender Equality Is Limited Public Figure for Purposes of Libel Lawsuit Over Her Performance appeared first on Reason.com.
