Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TORT CLAIMS—Tenn. App.: State official's defamation suit against State of Tennessee may move forward, (Apr 14, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

The court ruled that the State of Tennessee did not establish that statements related to the firing of a state official were entitled to absolute privilege.

A Tennessee appeals court held that a former Deputy Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) adequately set forth a claim of defamation and that the State of Tennessee did not establish that statements made in connection with his firing were entitled to absolute privilege. The deputy commissioner contested the firing to the state Claims Commission, which under Tennessee law has jurisdiction to hear claims of defamation involving state employees. He sued the state, arguing that the Claims Commission's upholding of his termination for sexual harassment was improper. The court reversed the decision of the Claims Commission, stating that for purposes of his appeal it considered the allegations in the complaint to be true. Accordingly, the court held that the complaint established allegations showing that the state's investigation summary of the deputy commissioner's alleged sexual harassment contained defamatory statements that were not protected by absolute executive privilege (Hill v. State of Tennessee, No. M2022-01749-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. Apr. 10, 2025)).

False allegations. The deputy commissioner alleged that the state, through multiple state employees, fabricated sexual harassment complaints against him, conducted a sham investigation into accusations known to be false, and disseminated false statements about him via the media to the public by alleging improper misconduct to justify his termination. He contended that the false allegations were not related to any actual wrongdoing on his part but instead related to personal grievances. He also argued that state employees knowingly made false allegations to the media and used a sham investigation to cover up their actions.

According to his, the allegations of sexual harassment against him originally stemmed from a conversation he had on February 6, 2019, with L.B., a state employee who worked at Henry Horton State Park. He alleged that the two discussed a shared intertest in hiking and that he dared L.B. to attempt a hike on Angel's Landing, a particularly challenging hike along a narrow trail in Zion National Park in Utah.

Joke. The deputy commissioner claimed that subsequently, L.B. jokingly told a manager at Henry Horton State Park that the deputy commissioner had a "crush" on her because he made an effort to speak with her when he visited the location. He alleged that L.B.'s statement was clearly a joke and that L.B. did not assert that he was sexually harassing her. According to the deputy commissioner, L.B. informed investigators that she had not been sexually harassed and that L.B. was threatened by state officials and lost her state job because she failed to support the development of a false case against him.

On February 12, 2020, the deputy commissioner filed a complaint for $300,000 damages with the Claims Commission, asserting that certain state employees published defamatory statements concerning him. Under Tennessee law the Claims Commission has jurisdiction to hear claims of defamation involving state employees. His defamation case largely related to press coverage in an investigation summary, which he alleged contained statements defaming him. This summary was authored by the Deputy Commissioner and General Counsel of the Department of Human Resources.

The Claims Commission dismissed his complaint on grounds that the statements made in the investigative summary were not defamatory because they were true, and that the investigation summary cited by him as containing the defamatory statements was protected by absolute executive privilege.

Allegation of defamation. As to the Claims Commission's assertion that the statements made in the investigation summary were true, the deputy commissioner alleged that the summary contained a narrative that state officials knew to be untrue and that the officials cited the findings of an investigation that he characterized as a sham. The court concluded that the Claims Commission's characterization of the content of the investigation summary was clearly in dispute. Accordingly, accepting the deputy commissioner's allegation as true for the purposes of his appeal, the court rejected the Claim Commission's conclusion that no defamation occurred.

No absolute privilege established. The state argued that all statements in the investigation summary were entitled to absolute executive privilege. It contented that the holding of New York Times v. Sullivan meant that the deputy commissioner, as a public figure, would have to show that the state published the investigation summary with actual malice: knowledge that statements contained therein were untrue, or were published with reckless disregard for the truth of the statements. To defeat his allegations of defamation, the state argued that the investigation summary was created by the Deputy Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Human Resources, a high-level official who formulated policy at the state level. As such, her official actions were entitled to absolute executive privilege.

The court rejected the state's argument for executive privilege, noting that the Tennessee Supreme Court has decided that the actions of a Deputy Commissioner did not qualify for absolute immunity.

The case is No. M2022-01749-COA-R3-CV.

Judge: Usman, J.

Attorneys: W. Gary Blackburn (Law Office of W. Gary Blackburn) for Richard Brock Hill. Jonathan Skrmetti, Office of the Attorney General, for State of Tennessee.

Cases: TortClaims StateLawClaims TennesseeNews