Favre v. Sharpe

Mississippi’s Department of Human Services (MDHS) filed a civil lawsuit against Brett Favre (plaintiff), a former professional football player, seeking to recover $1.1 million in funds Favre had received from the nonprofit Mississippi Community Education Center, Inc. (MCEC) for speaking engagements. The lawsuit alleged that $77 million of federal funds intended for impoverished Mississippi residents had been fraudulently misused by other individuals (not Favre), the $1.1 million was part of those fraudulently misdirected funds, and Favre had never even attended the relevant speaking engagements. After learning Favre had returned the $1.1 million before the lawsuit was filed, MDHS amended the complaint to recover $5 million in misdirected federal funds that Favre had allegedly helped arrange for MCEC to provide for a volleyball facility at the University of Southern Mississippi. An online news article reported details of the civil lawsuit. Skip Bayless and former professional football player Shannon Sharpe (defendant) hosted a nationally televised sports talk show. During a show, the article was referenced, and Bayless asked Sharpe for his thoughts on the lawsuit’s allegations. In response, Sharpe made critical remarks about Favre, calling him names and accusing him of stealing. Sharpe also falsely stated that Favre had not repaid the $1.1 million. However, Bayless corrected that statement on air and accurately stated that no criminal charges had been brought against Favre relating to the money. Favre sent Sharpe a letter asking him to retract the statements, but he refused. Favre sued Sharpe in federal district court, alleging that three of Sharpe’s on-air statements qualified as defamatory: (1) “you’ve got to be a sorry mofo to steal from the lowest of the low,” (2) “Brett Favre is taking from the underserved” in Mississippi, and (3) Favre “stole money from people that really needed that money.” Sharpe asserted multiple defenses, including that the statements were rhetorical hyperbole and that the statements were protected opinions based on disclosed facts. The district court found that the statements were rhetorical hyperbole and dismissed the claims. Favre appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.