Hermon School Department v. McBreairty

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: May 15, 2023
• Docket: PENcv-22-00056
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE'OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT PENOBSCOT, SS. Docket No. CV-2022-00056 ·PENSC-CIV-2022-00056

) Hennon. School .Department, ) ) Plaintiff ) v. ) ORDER DENYING SPECIAL ) MOTION TO DISMISS Shawn McBreairty, ) ) Defendant. ) )

Introduction

Plaintiff Hermon School Department (HSD) became concerned about certai,h statements

Defendant Shawn McBreairty made about one of HSD's employees, teacher Mallory Cook. It ' . r~sp~nded with a civil action by which it seeks a declaration thatMcBteairty's s.tatements constitµted

bullying, harassing, and hazing behavior in violation of state law and policies of the Hermon School

Board. It also seeks an injunction prohibiting Mr. McBreairty from issuing more of.the· same.

The matter presents several layers of complication. One is that the plaintiff is ·Ms. Cook's

empk,yer, which seeks to. advance its <;>wn .interest in acquiring and retaining employees, iath_er than

Ms. Cook herself. Another is that HSD postures Mr. McBreairty's' alleged actionable statements in the

terms of a school bullying policy, notwithstanding that Mr. McBreairty has no children in the school

system, is not affiliated with it any capacity, and does not even live in Hermon. Another is that,

although Mr. McBreairty unmistakably disapproves of Ms. Cook's activities, some of his criticisms are

couched in such awkward terms it is difficult to articulate the precise substance of his disdain (in

several contexts, he accuses Ms,· Clark of "pushing" various subject matters rather than, e.g.,

promoting a point of view, approving of an attitude, or encouraging a specific action). Yet another is

that HSD seeks the Constitutionally disfavored remedy of enjoining Mr. McBreairty from speaking

1 rather than µolding him to account after he has spoken. A further, threshold layer of consideration is

the one Mr. McBreairty now presents to the Court: a special motion to dismiss pursuant to 14 M.R.S.

§ .556, the.anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against. Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) law.

In their thorough memoranda and illuminating oral arguments, for which the Court thanks

them, counsel ranged deep into the substance of the case. The Court's focus at this early stage,

however, must be limi,ted to the motion now before it: whether Mr. McBreairty is entitled to immediate

relief under the anti-SLAPP law.

The Court recognized at oral argument that tl1e resolution of the pending motion has .been

delayed for reasons unrelated to the parties. They are entitled under the anti-SLAPP law to a prompt

resolution of this special motion and the Court acknowledges their patience in awaiting it.

Anti-SLAPP Law and Standards for Special Motion to Dismiss

SL.APP is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Particip~tion, which are lawsuits

filed with the goal of stopping citizens from exercising their political rights or punishing them for

having done so. See Thurlow·v. Nelson, 2021 ME 58, ,i 8, 263 A.3d 494 (quoting George W, Pring,

SJ.APPs: Strategic 1.AwsuitsAgainst Public Participation, 7 Pace Env't L. Rev. 3, 5-6 (1989)). AnticSLAPP

laws have been enacted in many states to protect the rights of individuals to petition the government

and serve "to provide a means for the swift dismissal of such lawsuits early in the litigation as a

safeguard for the defendant's First Amendment right to petition." See Thurlow, 2021 ME 58, ,i 8, 263

A.3d 494; Gaudette v. Davis, 2017 ME 86, ,i 4, 160 A.3d 1190. Enacted in 1995, Maine's anti-SLAPP

law, 14 M.R.S. § 556 (2022), has frequently been the subject ofLaw Court decisions which have sought

to· balance. the conflicting constitutional interests of the right to access the courts and the right to

petition the government. Thurlow, 2021 ME 58, ,i,i 9-11, 263 A.3d 494 (summarizing the development

of Maine's anti-SLAPP caselaw and. the Law Court's changing standard on how to evaluate anti­

SLAPP special motions to dismiss); see also Gaudette, 2017 ME 86, ,i 22 n.9, 160 A.3d 1190 ("Our

2 shifting interpretations of the anti-SLAPP statute reflect our continuing struggle with the sweeping

breadth of the statute, particularly when compared to the anti-SLAPP statutes of other states.").

In Thurlmv, the latest substantive judicial refashioning of the multi-step process applicable to

the consideration of anti-SLAPP motions, the Law Court recast the procedure as follows:

First, the defendant must file a special motion to dismiss and establish, based on the pleadings and affidavits, that the claims against him are based on his exercise of the right to petition pursuant to the federal or state constitutions. TSecond, i]f the defendant meets the burden of establishing that the claims are based on petitioning activity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish, through the pleadings and affidavits, prima fade evidence that the defendant's petitioning activity was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law and that the defendant's petitioning activity caused actual injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs failure to meet either portion of this burden requites that the court graf\t the special motion to dismiss with no fµrther procedure.'

l..tighton v. Lowenberg, 2023 ME 14, , 32, 290 A.3d 68 (em:;,hasis in original) (citing Weinstein v.. Old

Orchard Beach Fam. Dentistry, LLC, 2022 ME 16,, 5,271 A.3d 758). This is the procedure which applies

to the instant motion.

Mr. McBreairty's communications

Mr. McBreairty has made numerous communications about Ms. ·Cook which the Court now

outlines. In April of 2022, in a Maine Freedom of Access Act public records request (FOAA) 'to the

school superintendent, "Mr. McBreairty stated that Ms. Cook 'appears to be grooming children' and

that she is attempting 'to co-parent the children of Hermon High School, while not concentrating on

the very basics of education."' (Pl.'s Comp!.,, 30-31; Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 2.) HSD alleges that Mr.

McBreairty c;;culated emails in early April of 2022, stating that "Ms. Cook was 'grooming children'

and 'running a shadow organization by pushing hyper-sexualization of minors in the Gay Sexuality

t In Thur/01v, the Law Court noted that this two-step formulation of the framework for consideration of an artti-SLAPP motion to dismiss was an overruling of their decision in Gaudette, which had added a third step to the consideration, and represented a retum to the framework the Law Court previously adopted in Nader v. Me. Democratic Par/J, See Thurlow, 2021 ME 58, 1J 19,263 A.3d 494; Gaudelle, 2017 ME 86, 1J 5, 160 A.3d 1190, Nader, 2012 ME 57, 1)1) 33, 36, 41 A.3d 551. /

3 Alliance (GSA) club as faculty sponsor.'" (Pl.'s Comp!. ,i 44; Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 2.) Mr. McBreairty

circulated fw:ther emails to school and Town of Hermon officials upon denial of his fOAA request

on April 7, 2022. (Mc~reairty Deel. ,i 6; Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 2-3.) Mr. McBreairty appeared on a radio

show on Februa1y 16, 2022, and hosted a podcast on March 18, 2022, during both of which he spoke

about Ms. Cook and what he believed to be occurring in the Hermon School Department. (Pl.'s

Compl. ,i,i 34, 38; Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 3.) On April 12, 2022, Mr. McBreairty posted a link to his

. podcast and a definition of "grooming" on his Facebook page. (Pl.'s Comp!. ,i 45; Def.'s Mot. Dismiss .

3-4.) The complaint also aUeges that Mr. McBreairty posted on Twitter on March 2, 2022, that Ms.

Cook and other employees of the school were "groomers.'' (Pl.'s Comp!. ,i 46; Def.'s Mot. Dismiss

4.) Finally, it is undisputed that Mr. McBreairty did post on Twitter that Ms. Cook "has a 'secret'

Twitter account, [and] is the head of a hyper-sexualization movement" (Pl.'s' Comp!. ,i ~9; Def.'s Mot.

Dismiss 4.)

Analysis

None of Mr. McBreairty's communications about Ms. Cook and her alleged activities ask for

any relief: they do not request that Ms. Cook's employment be terminated, suggest the school

department withdraw sponsorship from the student organization to which he objects, propose a

change in curriculum, or otherwise advance any remedy to the deficiencies he perceives in the school

department's conduct of public education. Both the tone and the specifics of his communications

could support a conclusion that his single objective is to make Ms. Cook miserable. As Mr. McBreairty

notes, however, the definition of "petitioning" under the anti-SLAPP law is broad, encompassing

communications that only obliquely seek changes in actual policies or practices. See, e.g., Schelling v.

I.ind,!!, 2008 ME 59, ,i 13, 942 A.2d 1226 (finding that a letter to the editor of a newspaper "arguably

intended ... to enlist public support" constituted petitioning under the anti-SLAPP statute and noting

the breadth of the definition of petitioning in the statute). The Court therefore concludes for the

4 pw;pose of evaluating his special motion to dismiss that Mr. McBreairty was petitioning when he .

submitted his FOAA communications, spoke on the radio, and posted to social media.

In supporting his motion, Mr..McBreaitty argues that all his disapproving communications

were statements of opinion, similar to calling a person a racist, unfair, or unjust. The Court agrees with

this analysis as it relates to Mr. McBreaitty's characterization of Ms. Cook as "a leftist progressive who

is an anti-Trumper." (Twitter po.st of March 10, 2022, reproduced Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 4.) Other

statements cannot so easily be characterized as opinions.

Mr. McBreairty is alleged variously to have stated that Ms. Cook "appears to be grooming

children," that she is a sel{Ual predator, that she mns a "hyper-sexualization movement," and that she

has a secret Twitter account. (Pl.'s Comp!. , 39; Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 4.) All these statements, alone

and in coµtext with one another, amount to an accusation of misconduct rather than a strongly. stated

disagreement about suitable teachi!lg material for teenage students. Neither can they be saved from

their defamatory implications, at least at this preliminary stage of the case, by Mr. McBreairty's posting

of a definition of "grooming" on his Twitter account and his use of the word "appears." See Ballard v.

Wagner, 2005 ME 86,, 12, 877 A.2d 1083 ("[I]n assessing whether words are defamatory, they must

be 'taken in their ordinary and usual meaning."') (quoting Judkins v. Buckland, 149 Me. 59, 64 98 A.2d

538, 541 (1953)). His proposed definition of "grooming" is damrung on its face and the posting does

not necessarily retract any othet implication Mr. McBreairty might have launched in his earlier

communication; and the term "appearance" in the context of specific accusations of activity strongly

suggests the appearance is supported by known but as-yet unrecounted facts. See Ballard, 2005 ME 86,

, 12, 877 A.2d 1083 ("A statement of opinion may be actionable if it implies the existence of

undisclosed defamatory facts.''); Lester v. Powers, 596 A.2d 65, 71 (Me. 1991). The Court therefore

concludes that at least elements of Mr. McBreairty's petitioning activity were factual statements

without reasonable support.

5 Whether Mr. McBreairty has caused harm to the Hermon School Department rather than Ms.

Cook alone is a closer call. She was the target of his campaign, and her affidavit recounts her personal

responses to Mr. McBreairty's statements. The Department's response and supporting materials state

that the venue in which Ms. Cook conducts the activities to which Mr. McBreairty objects had to be

moved, not in response to his petition for a change in policy but in response to what is alleged to be

a plausible sense of danger generated by his various communications. Without offering an opinion on

the validity of any other allegation of hann to the School Department, the Court finds this allegation

sufficient to preclude relief under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Conclusion and Order

Defendant has limited his request for relief to a dismissal under 1.4 M.R.S. § 556. He is not

entitled to that relief. His motion inust therefore be DENIED.

So ORDERED.

The Clerk may incorporate this Otder upon the docket by reference, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).

Dated: May 16, 2023 The Hon. Bruce C. Mallonee Entered on the docket: 05/18/2023 Justice, Maine Superior Court