1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Sluggers Hit News Network with Defamation Suit Over Reports of Performance-Enhancing Drugs

Sluggers Hit News Network with Defamation Suit Over Reports of Performance-Enhancing Drugs

Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.29.16

In early January, Washington Nationals first baseman Ryan Zimmerman and Philadelphia Phillies first baseman Ryan Howard filed complaints against Al Jazeera America in federal court in Washington, D.C. for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The (largely identical) complaints attack the veracity of Al Jazeera's December 26, 2015 report implicating Zimmerman and Howard, among others, in the use of performance-enhancing drugs.  Importantly, shortly before the report aired and was published on Al Jazeera's website, the report's main source recanted his story.

The defamation case against Al Jazeera may be difficult for the first basemen, for at least three reasons:

  • Truth is a complete defense to defamation – if Al Jazeera's allegations in the report are true, the sluggers will strike out. Al Jazeera's truth defense is also a risk for Zimmerman and Howard:  it subjects their respective training and supplement usage programs to discovery.
  • Because Zimmerman and Howard are public figures under defamation law, they must prove that Al Jazeera had actual malice in making the allegations against them – either by proving that Al Jazeera knew that its statements were false, or by proving that Al Jazeera acted with reckless disregard for the allegation's truth or falsity. While the recantation from Al Jazeera's main source may be a helpful fact, the ballplayers will need more to show actual malice.
  • Neither Al Jazeera nor its employees made the accusations contained in the investigative report – the report merely gathered news in the form of its source's statements. Defamation law grants journalists substantial leeway to gather and disseminate news, even if the news later proves untrue.

But the first basemen need not swing for the fences in this case. The more important win may not come from the district court, but from the court of public (and sponsor) opinion. Zimmerman and Howard's complaints may be a tactical move in a larger brand protection strategy. Regardless of the cases' outcomes, so long as the players maintain their wholesome reputations with fans and, relatedly, valuable sponsors, the players may be satisfied.

The recent announcement that the news network is shutting down its U.S. operations on April 30th adds an interesting wrinkle to the case. For now the lawsuits are active, but don't be surprised if the suits were to settle quietly – likely before any discovery would begin.

Other Articles in This Month's Edition:

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24

Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard

On April 17, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.  The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases.  As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts.  The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees.  For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm. ...

View All Insights