In a decision by Judge Jeffrey Schmehl in Manco v. St. Joseph’s University (E.D. Pa.), it was noted that on February 25, 2021, Loue tweeted at SJU regarding Greg Manco’s alleged behavior contributing to a hostile learning environment with racism, sexism, and transphobia. SJU responded by emphasizing its commitment to being a welcoming, diverse, and inclusive community, stating that they promptly investigate reports of bias and harassment. Plaintiff claims that Loue’s tweet was false and that Loue was not a student of Dr. Manco.
Similar to previous motions to dismiss by other student defendants, Loue argued that her tweet was privileged as it initiated an investigation under federal regulations. However, the court differentiated Loue’s tweet from privileged communications that directly involved individuals at SJU. The court stated that a general tweet to a private university does not necessarily initiate an investigation.
The court also highlighted that the immunity granted to student communications in previous cases was for specific emails and correspondence to individuals at SJU, not public tweets. Therefore, Loue’s tweet did not qualify for immunity.
Furthermore, the court found that Loue’s tweet could be interpreted as defamatory, potentially leading readers to believe that Plaintiff is racist, sexist, or transphobic. As a result, Loue’s motion to dismiss based on immunity was denied.
Defendant Loue also sought to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim of false light. Under Pennsylvania law, a false light claim requires showing that published material is untrue, highly offensive, and publicized with knowledge of its falsity. The court acknowledged that the truthfulness of Loue’s tweet was disputed but noted that it could imply negative characteristics about Manco. Even if the tweet was true, it could still cast Plaintiff in a false light. Therefore, the claim was allowed to proceed.
Additionally, Loue attempted to have Plaintiff’s claim of tortious interference dismissed. However, the court determined that Plaintiff had provided sufficient facts to support the claim against Loue, alleging activities by student defendants to have Manco suspended and his contract terminated. The court concluded that this claim could proceed to discovery.
It is important to note that courts have different interpretations regarding accusations of racism, anti-Semitism, or similar allegations. While general accusations may be considered opinions and not defamatory, specific accusations of engaging in bigoted behavior can be deemed potentially libelous. Judge Schmehl’s earlier opinion highlighted the distinction, emphasizing that accusations must imply more than just general allegations to be legally actionable.
