Church office staff members often learn personal, and sometimes embarrassing, facts about other individuals. When it comes to passing on information, an administrator may feel confused or experience tension about what to say and to whom. Defamation can occur in situations in which the alleged offender is acting in what he or she believes is the best interests of the church. In fact, that often is the case.
A defamatory statement is an oral or written statement about another person; that is false; that is published (that is, communicated to a sufficient number of other persons to affect the other person's reputation); and that injures the other person's reputation. It's also important to remember that defamation involves injury to another's reputation rather than feelings. Not every derogatory statement is defamatory. Examples of a defamatory statement include statements concerning suspected embezzlement by a church employee, allegations of sexual misconduct by a staff member or volunteer, or explanations of why a church employee was dismissed.
The potential for a lawsuit can arise from many common situations. To illustrate, in one case a youth pastor made statements to members of the congregation about an alleged affair between an associate pastor and a church employee and was sued for defamation. St. Luke Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Smith, 568 A.2d 35 (Md. 1990).
This example, along with many other cases, suggests that church staff members should refrain from making public remarks that might diminish the reputation, respect, goodwill, or esteem of other persons.
Defenses to Defamation
Church staff members who do communicate disparaging remarks about another person may be able to assert one of the following defenses to a charge of defamation.
1. Truth. If an allegedly defamatory remark is true, it is simply not regarded as defamatory by most courts. This defense is based on the principle that the dissemination of truth should not be restricted by the fear of defamation lawsuits.
However, note that in recent years the courts have devised a new tort (invasion of privacy) to punish statements which, though true, disclose private facts about another person in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
2. Matters of common interest. Several courts have ruled that church members are protected by a qualified privilege when sharing with other church members about matters of mutual concern or common interest. This means that such communications cannot be defamatory unless they are made with malice. Malice in this context means that the person who made the allegedly defamatory remark knew that it was false, or made it with a reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.