Third Circuit Rejects Application of Quasi-Judicial Privilege to Internal University Grievance Proceedings

In Overall v. University of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that statements made at an internal university grievance proceeding were not privileged and therefore could be the subject of a defamation claim under Pennsylvania law. The Court held that a proceeding must be judicial or quasi-judicial to invoke the privilege, and that government involvement was necessary to qualify a proceeding as judicial or quasi-judicial. As a result, the Court found that the University’s internal grievance proceeding, which was an entirely private proceeding without government involvement, did not qualify as quasi-judicial and statements during such a proceeding were not privileged.

The defamation claim at issue arose from statements during a proceeding conducted under the University’s internal faculty grievance procedure. Dr. Karen Overall, a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania Veterinary School, brought an internal grievance based on the denial of her application for a more prestigious position within her department, alleging gender discrimination and various other claims. At the internal grievance proceeding, the Department Chair provided unsworn testimony about Dr. Overall, including testimony that Dr. Overall represented that she had a Ph.D. in publications before she had received one and that her articles were "peer reviewed" when they were not. He also suggested that Dr. Overall had misused grant funds intended for clinical work.

The University ruled against Dr. Overall in her internal grievance, so she filed a lawsuit against the University, alleging defamation based on the statements made by the Department Chair at the internal grievance proceeding, among other claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to the University on the defamation claim, finding that the internal grievance proceeding was quasi-judicial and that the statements were therefore entitled to an absolute privilege against defamation claims.

On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that an internal grievance proceeding at a private university, such as the proceeding at issue in this case, did not meet the standard for a quasi-judicial proceeding under Pennsylvania law. The Court held that, under Pennsylvania law, completely private proceedings could not be privileged because the law limited privileged proceedings to those involving a government entity. In reaching this decision, the Court highlighted the fact that proceedings involving a government entity often have more procedural safeguards than those afforded by private internal grievance proceedings, such as testimony taken under oath, adjudicators with the power to issue a binding judgment and transcriptions of the proceedings.

While the Overall decision interprets Pennsylvania law, it should serve as a reminder to colleges and universities that statements made at an internal grievance proceeding may give rise to an actionable defamation claim. To avoid such claims, the college or university should remind witnesses to limit their testimony to the facts within their personal knowledge, as truth is often the best defense to a defamation claim.

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.