Calling High School Student “Low IQ” and “Special Ed” at School Meeting About Cheating Can Be Defamatory

The following facts derive from the evidence in the summary-judgment record and are framed in the light most favorable to [Hamson] as the nonmoving [party].

Hamson was enrolled as a student at Foothills, a private school, for the 2021-2022 academic year. At that time, Foothills used a password-protected computer grading system to track student assignments and grades. Some teachers and administrators could only unlock assignments, review student progress, and grade work, while other teachers and administrators could also change or override grades.

During the school year, a teacher’s aide learned that students were logging into the system using a teacher’s credentials and changing their grades. Hamson’s former teacher also noticed that Hamson’s assignments were being modified in the system. The teacher’s aide “conducted an in-depth investigation on every student within [the] high school classroom” to discover when the grades were being overridden, and by whom. This investigation took place on April 4, 9, and 11, 2022. During this investigation, the teacher’s aide gathered “strong evidence” that several students, including Hamson, used a former teacher’s account to access the system and change their grades. Ecker confronted Hamson, and she admitted that she altered her grades.

On April 5, before the investigation was complete, Ecker held a school meeting to confront some of the students suspected of being involved in changing their grades. The group included students and faculty members of the school, but it did not include Hamson because her parents had removed her from Foothills. Hamson estimated that approximately 17 people were present at the school meeting. Ecker characterized this gathering as a “group session” that is “a normal session as part of the [school’s] process and is designed in the form of discipline/assembly.”

During this school meeting, Ecker made several statements that Hamson asserts were defamatory. Hamson claims that “[t]he entire speech” was defamatory and included several illustrative examples in the summary-judgment record. Among other statements, Ecker said:

We can be mad at [Hamson]. I would be mad at myself if I were you guys for being a part of a scheme with somebody with a poor IQ. Okay? And that’s what I mean. Sitting around the table planning a bank heist, and you’ve got … a special ed [student] sitting across the table. Maybe it’s time to get up and go, pick a new crew. Okay?

Ecker also referred to Hamson as one of the “ringleaders” of the grade-changing scheme and insinuated that she had been expelled for her conduct. Ecker does not dispute that he made these statements.

In March 2024, Hamson filed a defamation complaint against Foothills and Ecker. She asserted that Ecker made these statements “knowing they were false.” And she further alleged that the statements were “repeated throughout the community,” and had a “severe and negative impact” on her wellbeing….

If a plaintiff proves the elements of defamation, a defendant may argue that a privilege “operate[s] to defeat a defamation claim.” Minnesota law recognizes two types of privileges as defenses against defamation claims: absolute privilege and qualified privilege. Only the existence of a qualified privilege is at issue in this case….

For qualified privilege, a statement “must be made in good faith, on a proper occasion, with a proper motive, and upon reasonable or probable cause.” Qualified privilege is based on the premise that “statements made in particular contexts or on certain occasions should be encouraged despite the risk that the statements might be defamatory.” The supreme court has identified a number of circumstances in which an otherwise defamatory statement is protected by qualified privilege. These instances include:

an employer’s good-faith statements about a former employee in a requested character reference, statements made in relation to an employer’s investigation into employee misconduct, an employer’s communication to a former employee of the reasons for the employee’s discharge, bad credit references from lending institutions, and [certain statements made in relation to child-abuse allegations].

Qualified privilege also extends to “a good faith report of suspected criminal activity to law enforcement officials” ….

Hamson presented evidence that: (1) Ecker knowingly made the false statements about her to cover up a long-term cheating scandal; (2) Ecker had knowledge of cheating issues for years before the current allegation; (3) Ecker knowingly gave students passwords and access to grading; and (4) Ecker made the statements about Hamson after her mother involved the school board.

This is evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Hamson, from which a fact-finder could conclude that Ecker’s statements were not made in good faith, on a proper occasion, with a proper motive, and upon reasonable or probable cause. Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact exists, and the district court erred in granting summary judgment as a matter of law on qualified-privilege grounds….

“A qualified privilege is [also] abused and therefore lost if the plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant acted with [common-law] malice” … [meaning] “that the defendant made the statement from ill will and improper motives, or causelessly and wantonly for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff.” …

Hamson argues that evidence in the summary-judgment record could support a finding of malice. In her affidavit, Hamson maintained that Ecker made insensitive comments about her intelligence, which led her peers to believe that she had a low-IQ. She also asserted that Ecker told people she had been expelled for her actions, which he knew to be untrue because she left the school by her own choice.

As to a possible motive, Hamson asserted that cheating had been an “ongoing” problem for years and that the principal placed the blame on her to avoid accountability. A former Foothills school-board member and athletic director echoed this statement in her affidavit, noting that cheating had been a problem almost from the beginning of her involvement with the school. The board member stated that “[i]t was not just normal cheating where kids try to get answers from each other, but students having passwords to see all of the online test answers.” Hamson claimed that the “ordeal negatively impacted [her] mental health” and damaged her reputation among her peers, the town, and her religious community….

[E]vidence in the summary-judgment record, when viewed in the light most favorable to Hamson, presents a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to conclude that Ecker’s statements that Hamson had a “poor IQ,” was a “special ed” student, and was expelled were driven by an improper motive. Generally, “[m]alice cannot be implied from the statement itself.” Looking beyond the statements, the record shows that Ecker made the statements during a school meeting in front of other students and faculty, and that these statements were potentially damaging to the student’s reputation….