What is the name of your state? I reside in AZ and am the prospective Plaintiff along with my husband. The prospective Defendant is a WA state county agency and employee of same.
The employee is a Case Worker for its department of family services. I would assume that I would need to sue in Federal Court based on diversity of residency if a county agency and its employees does not have immunity from civil prosecution under WA law if applicable. This is my first question to the Forum.
My second question is whether or not the applicable law excludes otherwise libelous statements made in confidential reports, and distributed only to interested parties, from causes of action such as Defamation of Character and Emotional Distress?
I have looked up the AZ statutes, if this would be the applicable law regarding the latter. By my read, I find no such exception as the statute in effect says only that Defamation occurs when libelous statements are communicated to third-parties. Moreover, the AZ statutes set forth that damages do not have to be proven if "Defamation Per Se" has occured such as when Adultery has been falsely alleged. This is directly applicable to my case as follows:
A Case Worker (social worker) from a WA state county agency asked if she could interview my husband and I pusuant to making child custody recommendations for the Court in the divorce of my husband's brother and his wife. I have significant follow-up correspondence to her which makes it irrefutably clear that she (Case Worker) understood that I am the spouse of my husband's brother, that my married name is the same as that of my spouse, and that I adhere to a traditional moral code as a committed practicing Christian.
I can only speculate about what the motives of the Case Worker may have been in identifying all the other witnesses who gave testimony in her report as "Family Member" or "Family Friend" while identifying me as "Paramour" which stunned me to the core.
Not only is this highly inflammatory slur no longer in common use, but its dictionary meaning could not be farther from the truth. This is: "a lover in an adulterous affair." Quite obviously, since my husband and I have been legally married for nearly 7 years, and I was never previously married, and my husband had been divorced for more than a decade before I even met him, it is not factually accurate nor technically possible that I could be his "Paramour." And, again, I can prove through correspondence that the Case Worker was absolutely clear that I am the wife of my husband (not his "Paramour").
It is worth noting that, despite that I was identified to her as an interview candidate by my brother-in-law by my MARRIED name, the Case Worker listed me in her report by my MAIDEN name (which neither he nor I had even informed her of since it was not relevant).
Accordingly, and based upon the general bias her report shows towards my sister-in-law in her report, I believe that the Case Worker got my maiden name from her and that she attempted to mislead the Court and interested parties about my character in order to discredit my statements about my sister-in-law which were not favorable.
Regardless of her motives, her use of a slur, no better than describing an African American with the "N****r" word or a Gay individual with "F****t" should be considered especially egregious for a trained social worker even if she reasonably believed what she inferred about me. In today's liberal society, had she believed what she inferred, the appropriate labels would have been "Partner", "Domestic Partner" or even girlfriend.
Yet, she chose to deliberately reach for a loaded adjective to identify me that is as outdated in its use as the above terms for African Americans and Gays, if not more so. Her intention is made even more clear in that she chose to reach 7 years into the past to identify me by my maiden name rather than my legal married name. In short, even if what she inferred were true, her use of a slur to label me was highly inappropriate, let alone totally unjustified since she full-well knew that my husband and I are married. The Case Worker should be held to a higher standard as her crucial role in family services depends on her ability to exercise impartiality, objectivity, sensitivity in choice of words, and societal tolerance. Beyond all this, being clear that her defamation was knowingly false and intentional, I believe it clearly demonstrates animus toward me.
If there is nothing in the law governing a suit between an AZ Plaintiff and a WA Defendant that would preclude a Defamation suit because the report was labelled "confidential", or has with limited distribution, then as stated above, I believe that the damages will not need to be proved as false references to someone as an "adulteror" rise to "Per Se" damages in AZ. Regarding exemplary damages, that the defamation was by a county employee and social worker should provide for an argument that her conduct was especially egregious and therefore meriting punitive damages. From the viewpoint of actual damages for emotional distress, note the following:
1. For the past 18 months, I have been under the care of several specialist physicians for a stress disorder requiring cardiac tests, MRIs, EEGs and a bastion of other tests, the cause of which is still unknown but the symptoms of which have gotten progressively worse and have been observed and noted by each and every doctor.
2. My work and livlihood with elected government officials and political campaigns and organizations are quite dependent on my reputation and "family values" lifestyle. The impact of being labelled a "Paramour" (adultress) in a written document on a government agency's letterhead, and having been given that label by an employee of that agency working in an official capacity, has caused me great emotional distress and fear that this report could get out and could be very damaging to my credibility and career. Even if closely guarded and sealed by the Court, my sister-in-law was already provided a copy. I have already had to previously send her a letter putting her on notice of possible legal action I would file against her if she persisted in libelous written statements she had made about my husband and I to other third-parties. I am now extremly fearful that she may leak information that could harm me in my career (i.e. that the Agency deemed me a Paramour/Adultress).
MY QUESTIONS:
1. Am I precluded from suing a WA state county agency and/or its employee for Disparagement and/or related causes or do they have immunity?
2. Which statutes apply, AZ or WA?
3. If AZ, since there is no exception listed for "confidential reports" in the Disparagement statutes (referring only to false statements made to third-parties), do i have a possible cause of action.
4. Same question relative to WA law if this applies, if you know the answer, or to Federal law if this would govern the case if heard in federal Court.
Thanks for bearing with me with this long post but I felt it was important to give the pertinent details!
IF YOU RESPOND TO THIS POST, KINDLY IDENTIFY IF YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY AND IN THIS FIELD OF PRACTICE. I SEE A LOT OF MISINFORMATION AND SPECULATION AMONG THE REPLIES IN THIS FORUM FOR GOOD PEOPLE TRYING TO HELP BUT WHO ARE CLEARLY NOT LEGAL PRACTITIONERS.
IT WOULD HELP TO KNOW IF A REPLY IS COMING FROM A LEGAL PRACTITIONER (ATTORNEY, JUDGE) OR JUST A GOOD-HEARTED SOUL LOOKING TO HELP.
THANK YOU!!!
The employee is a Case Worker for its department of family services. I would assume that I would need to sue in Federal Court based on diversity of residency if a county agency and its employees does not have immunity from civil prosecution under WA law if applicable. This is my first question to the Forum.
My second question is whether or not the applicable law excludes otherwise libelous statements made in confidential reports, and distributed only to interested parties, from causes of action such as Defamation of Character and Emotional Distress?
I have looked up the AZ statutes, if this would be the applicable law regarding the latter. By my read, I find no such exception as the statute in effect says only that Defamation occurs when libelous statements are communicated to third-parties. Moreover, the AZ statutes set forth that damages do not have to be proven if "Defamation Per Se" has occured such as when Adultery has been falsely alleged. This is directly applicable to my case as follows:
A Case Worker (social worker) from a WA state county agency asked if she could interview my husband and I pusuant to making child custody recommendations for the Court in the divorce of my husband's brother and his wife. I have significant follow-up correspondence to her which makes it irrefutably clear that she (Case Worker) understood that I am the spouse of my husband's brother, that my married name is the same as that of my spouse, and that I adhere to a traditional moral code as a committed practicing Christian.
I can only speculate about what the motives of the Case Worker may have been in identifying all the other witnesses who gave testimony in her report as "Family Member" or "Family Friend" while identifying me as "Paramour" which stunned me to the core.
Not only is this highly inflammatory slur no longer in common use, but its dictionary meaning could not be farther from the truth. This is: "a lover in an adulterous affair." Quite obviously, since my husband and I have been legally married for nearly 7 years, and I was never previously married, and my husband had been divorced for more than a decade before I even met him, it is not factually accurate nor technically possible that I could be his "Paramour." And, again, I can prove through correspondence that the Case Worker was absolutely clear that I am the wife of my husband (not his "Paramour").
It is worth noting that, despite that I was identified to her as an interview candidate by my brother-in-law by my MARRIED name, the Case Worker listed me in her report by my MAIDEN name (which neither he nor I had even informed her of since it was not relevant).
Accordingly, and based upon the general bias her report shows towards my sister-in-law in her report, I believe that the Case Worker got my maiden name from her and that she attempted to mislead the Court and interested parties about my character in order to discredit my statements about my sister-in-law which were not favorable.
Regardless of her motives, her use of a slur, no better than describing an African American with the "N****r" word or a Gay individual with "F****t" should be considered especially egregious for a trained social worker even if she reasonably believed what she inferred about me. In today's liberal society, had she believed what she inferred, the appropriate labels would have been "Partner", "Domestic Partner" or even girlfriend.
Yet, she chose to deliberately reach for a loaded adjective to identify me that is as outdated in its use as the above terms for African Americans and Gays, if not more so. Her intention is made even more clear in that she chose to reach 7 years into the past to identify me by my maiden name rather than my legal married name. In short, even if what she inferred were true, her use of a slur to label me was highly inappropriate, let alone totally unjustified since she full-well knew that my husband and I are married. The Case Worker should be held to a higher standard as her crucial role in family services depends on her ability to exercise impartiality, objectivity, sensitivity in choice of words, and societal tolerance. Beyond all this, being clear that her defamation was knowingly false and intentional, I believe it clearly demonstrates animus toward me.
If there is nothing in the law governing a suit between an AZ Plaintiff and a WA Defendant that would preclude a Defamation suit because the report was labelled "confidential", or has with limited distribution, then as stated above, I believe that the damages will not need to be proved as false references to someone as an "adulteror" rise to "Per Se" damages in AZ. Regarding exemplary damages, that the defamation was by a county employee and social worker should provide for an argument that her conduct was especially egregious and therefore meriting punitive damages. From the viewpoint of actual damages for emotional distress, note the following:
1. For the past 18 months, I have been under the care of several specialist physicians for a stress disorder requiring cardiac tests, MRIs, EEGs and a bastion of other tests, the cause of which is still unknown but the symptoms of which have gotten progressively worse and have been observed and noted by each and every doctor.
2. My work and livlihood with elected government officials and political campaigns and organizations are quite dependent on my reputation and "family values" lifestyle. The impact of being labelled a "Paramour" (adultress) in a written document on a government agency's letterhead, and having been given that label by an employee of that agency working in an official capacity, has caused me great emotional distress and fear that this report could get out and could be very damaging to my credibility and career. Even if closely guarded and sealed by the Court, my sister-in-law was already provided a copy. I have already had to previously send her a letter putting her on notice of possible legal action I would file against her if she persisted in libelous written statements she had made about my husband and I to other third-parties. I am now extremly fearful that she may leak information that could harm me in my career (i.e. that the Agency deemed me a Paramour/Adultress).
MY QUESTIONS:
1. Am I precluded from suing a WA state county agency and/or its employee for Disparagement and/or related causes or do they have immunity?
2. Which statutes apply, AZ or WA?
3. If AZ, since there is no exception listed for "confidential reports" in the Disparagement statutes (referring only to false statements made to third-parties), do i have a possible cause of action.
4. Same question relative to WA law if this applies, if you know the answer, or to Federal law if this would govern the case if heard in federal Court.
Thanks for bearing with me with this long post but I felt it was important to give the pertinent details!
IF YOU RESPOND TO THIS POST, KINDLY IDENTIFY IF YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY AND IN THIS FIELD OF PRACTICE. I SEE A LOT OF MISINFORMATION AND SPECULATION AMONG THE REPLIES IN THIS FORUM FOR GOOD PEOPLE TRYING TO HELP BUT WHO ARE CLEARLY NOT LEGAL PRACTITIONERS.
IT WOULD HELP TO KNOW IF A REPLY IS COMING FROM A LEGAL PRACTITIONER (ATTORNEY, JUDGE) OR JUST A GOOD-HEARTED SOUL LOOKING TO HELP.
THANK YOU!!!
Last edited:
