Summary of Thursday’s Tenth Circuit decision in Sun v. Xu, authored by Judge John Lee and supported by Judges Diane Wood and Doris Pryor:
Xingjian Sun and Xing Zhao accused their professor, Gary Gang Xu, of sexual and emotional abuse during their time at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Sun publicly shared these allegations on a morning news show and Wang, a professor at Wesleyan University, posted similar accusations online. The jury found Sun guilty of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress towards Xu, awarding him damages. However, Wang’s emotional distress claim was dismissed because his conduct was not deemed extreme and outrageous under Illinois law.
Despite the dismissal of Wang’s claim, Sun’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was upheld. The court determined that there was enough evidence to suggest that Sun may have fabricated her accusations against Xu. The jury heard conflicting testimonies and evidence, ultimately leading to their decision.
When assessing a district court’s decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, it is essential to disregard any evidence favoring the moving party that the jury was not obligated to believe. The jury’s evaluation of all the evidence presented at trial, particularly in determining the credibility of witnesses like Sun and Xu, is crucial.
Considering the substantial evidence at trial supporting the notion that Sun fabricated her accusations against Xu, the question arises whether such behavior constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct as per Illinois law. Indeed, intentional dissemination of false rape allegations on a national platform, as Sun did, is likely to evoke strong feelings of resentment and outrage in a reasonable individual.
The precedent set by the Illinois Supreme Court in Kolegas v. Heftel Broadcasting Group, where extreme and outrageous conduct was determined based on public dissemination, is relevant here. Sun’s actions, broadcasting false rape allegations to a national audience, clearly align with this standard and have had severe repercussions on Xu’s life and career.
Sun’s argument that there is no proof her actions caused Xu severe emotional distress is contradicted by Xu’s testimony detailing the impact of Sun’s accusations on his mental health, career, and reputation. The combination of symptoms Xu experienced, such as anxiety, nightmares, and loss of employment opportunities, meets the threshold for severe emotional distress under Illinois law.
Furthermore, Sun’s claim that her comments are protected by the First Amendment as a matter of public concern is a new argument raised on appeal and therefore waived due to lack of mention in prior proceedings. Additionally, the factual details surrounding Sun, Xu, and other individuals involved in the case shed light on the complexity and seriousness of the situation.
In summary, the actions taken by Sun in spreading false allegations of rape have had significant consequences on Xu’s life, warranting legal ramifications for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The intricate web of relationships and accusations among Sun, Xu, and others underscores the importance of upholding justice and accountability in such cases. Please rewrite this sentence for me.
Source link
