Lester v. Powers
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
596 A.2d 65 (1991)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Jane Powers (defendant), a junior at Colby College, took a course in abnormal psychology from an associate professor named Lewis Lester (plaintiff). During a lecture, Lester questioned the appropriateness of classifying homosexuality as a psychological disorder. Powers, who was gay, understood Lester’s tone of voice to indicate his disapproval of those who were homosexual. Powers later complained to administration that Lester’s handling of the subject was offensive. After Powers graduated from college, a committee deciding whether Lester should be awarded tenure solicited letters from alumni with input regarding Lester’s performance as a professor. Although Powers failed to respond by the deadline, she received approval from the college administration to respond by letter. In her letter to the committee, Powers expressed her personal observations and opinions regarding Lester, including her subjective assessment that Lester was homophobic, offensive, insensitive, and occasionally intimidating. The committee denied Lester tenure due, in large part, to Powers’s letter. Lester sued Powers for defamation. Powers argued that her comments were non-actionable statements made during the tenure process and protected by a qualified privilege. The trial court granted Powers’s motion for summary judgment. Lester appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Collins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
