For Your Data Doe V. Gonzaga Representative Brief Summary
February 03, 2019
Edit
DOE v. GONZAGA
Facts:
A instructor heard give-and-take of possible engagement rape; investigated, reported; guy lost instruction might equally a consequence of accusation (Q: privilege defeat publication?)
(ii) Univ. going frontwards tin brand universal vigilance on sexual attacks “its business”
Facts:
A instructor heard give-and-take of possible engagement rape; investigated, reported; guy lost instruction might equally a consequence of accusation (Q: privilege defeat publication?)
§ Held: intra-corporate privilege did not utilize to defeat publication requirement
§ Rule—if corporate employee not acting inwards “ordinary course” of her work publishes defamatory contestation (either to approximately other EE or non-EE), at that topographic point can survive liability
· (1) Each instance of speaking = arguably a publication
· (2) Univ. argues this isn’t publication b/c intra-corporate privilege (Univ. essentially talking to itself!)
o Problems:
§ (i) Requires us to bring practiced stance of what’s “ordinary class of business”; and(ii) Univ. going frontwards tin brand universal vigilance on sexual attacks “its business”