## Facts

- Kevin Ayala, a commercial airline pilot, and Evie L. Washington were former romantic partners who also co-owned a small airplane.
- After their relationship ended, disputes continued over their shared aircraft ownership.
- Washington sent letters to Ayala’s employer (USAir) and to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) accusing Ayala of illegal drug use, including marijuana use while off duty, and linking the accusation to aviation safety and regulatory oversight.
- Ayala denied the drug-use allegation and sued Washington for defamation.
- After trial, a jury found Washington’s marijuana accusation was false and found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Washington either knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth.
- The jury awarded nominal compensatory damages and punitive damages.
- The trial court set aside the verdict and entered judgment for Washington, concluding the statements involved a matter of public concern and that Ayala’s proof was constitutionally insufficient; it also prevented Ayala from presenting full evidence on punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington’s communications to the FAA and Ayala’s airline employer about alleged off-duty marijuana use by a commercial pilot involved a matter of public concern for First Amendment purposes.
2. If so, whether Ayala’s proof of falsity and fault met First Amendment requirements for a private-figure plaintiff to recover nominal compensatory damages and punitive damages.

## Decision

- The appellate court agreed that Washington’s FAA communication involved a matter of public concern because it implicated airline safety and regulatory performance.
- The court held that Ayala nonetheless satisfied the First Amendment standard for recovery because the jury found falsity and actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- The court reinstated the nominal compensatory damages award.
- The court remanded for a new trial limited to determining the amount of punitive damages and held Ayala should be permitted to present evidence relevant to fixing that amount.

## Legal Principles

- Speech on a matter of public concern triggers heightened First Amendment limits in defamation actions, including constitutional requirements concerning falsity and fault.
- A private-figure plaintiff may recover for defamation involving public-concern speech when the plaintiff proves falsity and, for punitive damages, actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
- A court may not nullify a supported jury verdict on the ground that the speech involves a matter of public concern when the jury has found falsity and actual malice under the constitutionally required burden.
- Nominal damages may be awarded for defamatory injury even where compensatory loss is not quantified; punitive damages may be imposed when actual malice is established, subject to appropriate proof and proceedings on amount.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Court of Appeals held that although the accusations to aviation regulators concerned public safety, the jury’s findings of falsity and actual malice by clear and convincing evidence satisfied First Amendment requirements, requiring reinstatement of nominal damages and a remand for a new trial on punitive damages only.


Ayala v. Washington, 679 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1996)