Legal expert: What’s next in Beaufort County teachers’ ‘grooming’ defamation lawsuits?
In a pair of lawsuits that could define how defamation is handled in local schools, two Beaufort County teachers are suing at least one parent over “grooming” claims, sparking a closer look at the legal process behind libel and slander.
Jay Bender, a long-time South Carolina media law expert, explains that defamation cases begin with filing a complaint and summons. In the two cases filed in September, Hilton Head Island Middle School teachers Mardy Burleson and Kathleen Harper allege that damaging accusations made by parents and community members during school board meetings and over social media prompted the lawsuits.
Burleson claims the accusations of “grooming” arose after she distributed a classroom survey that included a question about students’ preferred pronouns, while Harper said her involvement in a book discussion on modern-day slavery and genital mutilation led to similar “grooming” accusations. Burleson and Harper, as plaintiffs, are suing community members, including Hilton Head resident David Cook, for defamation.
How the initial legal process works
After the initial filing, Bender said the plaintiffs must prove that the defendants statements were false, damaging to the plaintiff’s reputation and made with actual malice or negligence. In these lawsuits, the teachers argue that not only were their reputations harmed, but their safety was also endangered.
The accusations against the teacher — primarily that they are “groomers” — if false, Bender said, would then lead to the questions if they are entitled to damages for defamation and what is the injury to their reputation? Evidence such as ridicule, scorn or exclusion from the community would be critical in proving harm to the teacher’s reputation.
The claims against the teachers have potentially serious implications, as accusations related to grooming often carry damaging connotations related to child exploitation or abuse, Bender added. In cases like this, plaintiffs can argue for reputational harm even if no direct job loss or sanctions are involved.
Second step: The discovery process
Following the defendant’s response to the complaint and summons, both sides would then engage in discovery — where both sides gather evidence, such as documents and depositions.
After discovery, Bender said that a motion for summary judgment may be filed, although such motions are rarely granted in South Carolina defamation cases. If the case proceeds to trial, it will likely be heard by a jury, with both sides presenting their evidence and arguments. However, Bender said most of the state’s courts encourage alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, to avoid lengthy trials.
Burleson’s alternative dispute resolution is scheduled for April 2, 2025, while Harper’s is scheduled for April 23, 2025, according to court records.
The teachers are likely considered a private figure, not a public one, Bender said. This distinction is significant because it affects the standard of proof required for defamation claims. Public figures, such as politicians or celebrities, face a higher burden of proof, needing to demonstrate actual malice. Private individuals, like the teachers in these cases, only need to show that false statements were made negligently.
Keys to the defense strategy
Defendants in defamation cases may attempt several strategies to defend themselves. Bender pointed out that the defendants could argue that the statements were not false or that the plaintiff did not suffer reputational harm. In some cases, defendants may also issue retractions, but according to Bender, this is often not sufficient to avoid liability.
“Oops, I did it. I’m sorry,” Bender said, “is not very persuasive if you have callously published something that injures someone’s reputation.”
In this case, some of the defamatory statements were reposted by other individuals on social media and blogs. In South Carolina, Bender explained that “the repeat of a libelous statement makes one as culpable as the one who created it.”
Defamation cases can take years to resolve, and Bender noted that this case is unlikely to be an exception. The complexities of managing multiple defendants and the discovery process will likely contribute to the length of the proceedings.
Bender said, the case could serve as a cautionary tale: “If the plaintiff recovers, it’ll be a lesson to people who publish before they think.”
Both teachers are asking for actual and special damages, as well as punitive damages, to deter the defendants from engaging in such behavior in the future. In defamation cases, actual damages compensate for harm to reputation, emotional distress, and financial losses, while special damages cover specific, quantifiable losses like lost income. Punitive damages punish the defendant for egregious behavior and deter future misconduct.
“I’ve...tried libel cases for over 40 years, and I could not possibly predict the outcome,” Bender said.
This story was originally published October 2, 2024 at 2:04 PM.
