North Dakota Upholds $3 Million Verdict in Favor of Professor
 
July 9, 2003
 
Sara L. Doyle- Atlanta

The Supreme Court of North Dakota upheld a $3 million verdict in favor of a professor against a student for libel, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress and intentional interference with a business relationship.  In 1998 Glenda Miskin, a student at the University of North Dakota enrolled in a physics class taught by Professor John Wagner.  The relationship between the two deteriorated with Professor Wagner claiming that Student Miskin sent him harassing and sexually  explicit e-mail messages and conveyed false statements about him professionally and personally.  Miskin contended that her oral, written and electronic communications with Professor Wagner were consensual and reciprocal. 

In the spring of 1999, the University of North Dakota Student Relations Committee held a hearing to consider Miskin’s possible violations of the University Student Code.  The Student Committee found that Miskin had violated student policies by stalking and harassing Professor Wagner, disrupting the physics department and other campus offices, and misusing the university computer system to stalk and harass Professor Wagner.  Miskin appealed the Student Committee’s decision, but it was upheld and resulted in Miskin’s indefinite suspension.

Professor Wagner then filed a state court complaint against Miskin in June 2000 alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, slander and intentional interference with a business relationship.  After some procedural wrangling, Professor Wagner amended his complaint in June 2001 to include allegations that Miskin published defamatory statements about him on the Internet.

In April 2002, a jury decided that Miskin had libeled and slandered Professor Wagner as well as intentionally interfered with his business relationship and awarded him $3 million in damages.  Miskin raised numerous issues on appeal, including that she had an absolute privilege for the statements she made at the University Student Committee hearing because it was a quasi judicial proceeding.  The Supreme Court of North Dakota agreed with Miskin that any statements that would have been made in the University Student Committee hearing could be considered privileged as the process is considered quasi judicial.  In North Dakota, the Court had previously held that school board meetings were considered official proceedings authorized by law and thus quasi judicial.  However, because Professor Wagner had alleged Miskin had defamed him outside of the University Student Committee hearing, and there were facts from which the jury could easily find this to be the case, Miskin’s appeal on this issue was denied.  The Court pointed out that an absolutely privileged communication must still be pertinent to be free of liability and just because a statement may be privileged in one context does not protect the speaker from liability after repeating those statements outside of the quasi judicial hearing.  As a result, Miskin’s comments over the Internet, as well as outside the Student Committee Hearing, were not privileged.

Miskin also claimed that the Court in North Dakota had no jurisdiction over the Internet.  However, the Court determined that Miskin’s Web site with an Internet address of “www.undnews.com” and linked articles related to university issues and staff, demonstrated that North Dakota University was the focus of her Web site.  The Web site included articles about Professor Wagner, his trial attorney and the litigation.  As a result, the Court concluded that Miskin did particularly and directly target North Dakota with her Web site and specifically a North Dakota resident, Professor Wagner.  The Court also noted that when much of the defamation occurred, Miskin was a North Dakota resident, attending a North Dakota university and living in campus housing, and that she used the North Dakota university system’s e-mail account to send messages to Professor Wagner. 

Numerous procedural issues plagued Miskin’s defense as she chose to proceed without a lawyer.  However, the case points out the fact that students are not absolutely protected from their conduct just because they are students.  In this case, Professor Wagner apparently took the appropriate steps by making an internal complaint against the student, which allowed the university to properly discipline her.  Universities and college professors should be encouraged to bring problem behavior to the attention of their institutions to avoid problems such as that suffered by Professor Wagner.  

For more information, contact Sara Doyle, toll free, at 1-888-688-8500.

 

First Amendment Forbids State-Sponsored Prayer
at a Public College or University