Tolman v. Miller, decided yesterday by Justice Michael Simon (D):
Tallman lives in Boardman City, Morrow County, Oregon. He owns and operates a coffee shop in Boardman called “The Farmer’s Cup.” In November 2020, Tolman ran for mayor of Boardman, but was unsuccessful. In May 2021, Mr. Tolman ran unsuccessfully for election to the Port of Morrow City Council. In November 2022, Tallman ran for Boardman City Council, but was unsuccessful. In May 2023, Mr. Tallman again ran for election to the Moreau Harbor Commission, but was unsuccessful.
Miller grew up in Boardman. Around April 2019, she started working as a server at Farmers Cup. she was 16 years old. Tolman hired Miller and became her boss. Shortly after starting work at Tolman, Miller “experienced what we now know to be highly inappropriate conduct by a 40-year-old man toward a 16-year-old girl.” (Please note that these are only plaintiff’s allegations at this time, which the court considers to be true only when disposing of defendant’s motion to dismiss. -EV) It is explained in detail inside.
She further added that “Tallman only acted like this when other adults were not present” and that she “did not feel safe working with Tallman.” She also witnessed friends and colleagues experiencing similar behavior from Tolman. In August 2019, Miller and a friend were attending sports practice. They discussed Tolman’s actions and were asked by the coach, a reporter required by Oregon law. The coach reported what he heard to the Officer Police Department. Shortly thereafter, Miller, accompanied by her parents, was interviewed by police officers and prepared a report. No charges were brought against Tolman. In 2022, Mr. Miller left Boardman and moved to Washington.
Another local resident (Nunez) “posted or shared a police report on Facebook” in August 2023, and Miller reposted it. Tallman sued for defamation, and a magistrate judge recommended that the court deny Miller’s anti-SLAPP motion (which called for immediate dismissal of the lawsuit): the judge concluded that Tallman was not a public servant or public figure at the time of Miller, but Face Book, Tallman only had to claim that Miller’s speech was negligently false, which was sufficient.
However, the district court disagreed regarding the public figure question. The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has treated candidates for public office as “public figures,” who must prove that the speaker’s statements were knowingly or recklessly false. And this applies not only to current candidates but also to recent candidates.
From November 2020 to May 2023, Mr. Tolman ran for local office four times, literally once every year for the four years immediately preceding Mr. Miller’s appointment. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that, absent Mr. Miller’s post in August 2023, Mr. Tolman’s repeated practice of standing for election every year would not have continued. Therefore, as of August 2023, Tolman is still a public figure, both as a recent and long-time candidate for public office, and that nothing, including Miller’s allegations, could reasonably affect his suitability for public office. All are protected under rules established in New York. Times v. Sullivan.
The situation may be different for someone who last ran unsuccessfully for public office decades ago and was the subject of allegedly defamatory statements decades later. Whether the person remains a public figure raises deeper questions, but it is one that the court does not need to answer here. According to the undisputed facts presented, Tolman ran for various public offices in November 2020, May 2021, November 2022, and May 2023. In August, he was a “general purpose” public figure.
Because Tallman was a “general purpose” public figure as of August 2023, the next issue relevant to Miller’s strike motion is that Tallman was not guilty of “actual malice” on Miller’s part (i.e., knowing or reckless falsehoods – EV). The question is whether sufficient evidence has been presented. …. Because Judge Holman did not reach that issue, the court remands the case to Judge Holman for consideration of that issue and other matters that may be relevant to the pending motion.
Indeed, in this case, the distinction between public and private figures may not be so important. The primary role in such cases is to require proof of knowing or reckless misrepresentation, rather than negligence, before the plaintiff can recover proven compensatory damages. Perhaps Miller was telling the truth (in which case she wins, regardless of whether Tallman is a public figure) or was lying (in which case she loses, regardless of whether Tallman is a public figure) ) is likely to be either. In the words of the judge:
Although Miller made a statement of objective fact that Tolman sexually assaulted her, Tolman now claims that it was demonstrably false and that Miller knew it was false. Based on this evidence, only two plausible inferences can be drawn from the allegations in the complaint. Either Miller is lying about the abuse allegations, or he’s not lying. If she had lied, she would have demonstrated an even higher standard of actual malice than negligence.
Still, the question of whether a plaintiff is a public or private person does not make sense, as when a defendant conveys another person’s claims, as newspaper reporters often do, for example, there may be an unreasonable but honest mistake on the part of the defendant. This is very important when there is a considerable degree of gender. . Thus, a district court’s determination that a recent candidate is a public figure would potentially be of great significance in these cases, even if it turns out to be of little significance in this case.