Gleason v. Smolinski

Madeleine Gleason (plaintiff) was William Smolinski, Jr.’s (Bill) girlfriend prior to the couple’s split two days before Bill went missing. Bill’s parents, William Smolinski, Sr., and Janice Smolinski, and his sister, Paula Bell (collectively, the family) (defendants), became convinced that Gleason had caused Bill to disappear or had knowledge about his disappearance. For this reason, the family embarked on a campaign to break Gleason and pressure her into aiding the investigation and acknowledging her role in Bill’s disappearance. The family placed missing-person flyers with Bill’s picture, reward information, and instructions for providing tips in various public places throughout Connecticut. Gleason was not mentioned on the flyers, and they were hung without violence. However, Gleason asserted that the family harassed her by concentrating the flyers near her home, workplace, and along the public roadways she traveled. The family intentionally saturated these areas with a greater concentration of posters for months to target Gleason. The family also made oral statements to people accusing Gleason of having something to do with Bill’s disappearance and calling her a murderer. Gleason sued the family for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) in relation to the posting of the missing-person flyers and for defamation in relation to the oral statements. Regarding the defamation claim, Gleason was a private person, and it was undisputed that the family’s oral statements related to an issue of public concern and were defamatory per se because they alleged crimes punishable by incarceration. It was also the case that Gleason never offered proof that the oral statements were false, and the trial court did not perform an analysis of fault, which the First Amendment to the United States Constitution required. After a trial, the trial court ruled in Gleason’s favor on both claims and found intentional harassment on the IIED claim and actual malice on the defamation claim. The family appealed, arguing that their conduct in posting missing-person flyers constituted constitutionally protected speech on an issue of public concern, thus barring Gleason’s IIED claim. Also, the family argued that insufficient evidence had been pleaded on the defamation claim. An appellate court affirmed, and the Connecticut Supreme Court granted review.