Defamation; The First Amendment; New York Times v Sullivan; Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc; Defamation by implication; Capable of defamatory meaning; Falsity; “Actual malice”; Ireland v Edwards; False light invasion of privacy; Central Michigan University (CMU)

The court held that the trial court erred in granting defendants-ESPN and its reporter (Murphy) summary disposition of one of plaintiff-Reighard’s defamation by implication claims and the related false light invasion of privacy claim. Plaintiff was the long-time CMU head women’s gymnastics coach. The case arose from two tweets Murphy posted. The court concluded, “particularly in light of the manner in which the statements contained within the tweets were juxtaposed with one another, that the implications complained of are capable of defamatory meaning. . . . The implication that Reighard’s placement on leave was related to allegations that” the head coach of the 2012 U.S. women’s gymnastics Olympic team (nonparty-G) “had physically and mentally harmed gymnasts tended to harm Reighard’s reputation so as to lower him in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. That assessment is even more true with respect to the second alleged implication, i.e., that Reighard’s placement on leave was related to Nassar or sexual abuse allegations.” The court found that this was “not so strained a reading of the tweets as to make summary disposition appropriate” and that a reasonable jury should assess them. As to falsity, it concluded there “was no record evidence refuting the alleged implication that CMU placed Reighard on leave for reasons related to the investigation of [G] (for allegedly physically and mentally harming gymnasts). Consequently, the implication was not, as a matter of law, materially false, and summary disposition on this claim” was proper. But the court found the same could not be said about “the second implication, i.e., that there was a connection between Reighard being placed on administrative leave and Nassar or sexual-abuse allegations. Indeed, the falsity of that implication is uncontested. Moreover, the evidence reflects that CMU confirmed on [2/20/21]—as reported by multiple news outlets at that time—that its investigation into Reighard was not connected to Nassar or allegations of sexual abuse. Moreover, when Murphy contacted CMU after being asked to retract his tweets, he was provided with the same information. Reighard has therefore satisfied the ‘falsity’ element” as to this claim. The court further found there was “adequate circumstantial evidence” for the issue of actual malice to be decided by a fact-finder. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.