Defamation suit over ‘grooming’ claims moves forward after judge denies dismissal
A Beaufort County judge declined to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a Hilton Head Island Middle School teacher against an outspoken parent over claims of “grooming” related to a classroom reading assignment.
The motion comes in the same month South Carolina became the nation’s leader for the most books banned in public schools. Notably, over half of the challenged books were by a different Beaufort County parent involved in a separate defamation case against another teacher.
Judge Robert Bonds issued the ruling last Thursday following Hilton Head resident and parent David Cook’s motion.
“After careful consideration, Defendant’s Motion is respectfully denied,” the order read.
The decision does not conclude the case, but does mark a win for the teachers and could shape how defamation cases are handled in local schools.
This case is one of two defamation lawsuits filed by Hilton Head Island Middle School teachers against community members, including Cook. The allegations stem from a growing political backlash in South Carolina over classroom content and school library books.
Cook made headlines in June 2023 when he threw bags of chicken feed toward Beaufort County school board members during a public meeting. During the public comment portion of the meeting, he said the gesture was meant to express his “opinion of [the board and the superintendent’s] lack of action” as the district moved to return most of the 97 books removed for review back to school libraries.
Last year, teachers Mardy Burleson and Kathleen Harper filed separate lawsuits claiming that Cook falsely called them “groomers” — defined as a predator who builds a relationship with a child to abuse them — on social media.
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, according to court documents.
Read more about Burleson’s case here.
Read more about Harper’s case here.
Cook’s Defense
Cook moved to dismiss the lawsuit from Harper earlier this year, arguing that his statements were constitutionally protected under the First Amendment as expressions of opinion and part of a public conversation about school curriculum and parental rights, according to court documents. He said that Harper was a limited public figure, which would require her to meet a higher legal standard — proving that Cook acted with actual malice.
His counsel also argued that his statements were opinions or rhetorical hyperbole, and not factual claims that could be legally defamatory. They said terms like “grooming” reflected personal judgment, not “literal accusations of pedophilia or criminal misconduct.”
The court rejected those arguments.
Harper’s attorney, Meg Phelan, argued in a May 9 filing that Cook’s statements were provably false, went far beyond opinion and were intended to portray Harper as a criminal.
The memo also emphasized that on social media Cook had cited definitions of “grooming” from the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network’s website, which “made it clear he was referring to sexual grooming when using the term.”
It also argued that Harper had not voluntarily entered a public controversy, and therefore should not be treated as a public figure.
This article has been updated to reflect new information that the “grooming” was related to a reading assignment and not a book.
This story was originally published May 22, 2025 at 8:45 AM.
