## Facts

- James Lee, a nontenured public school teacher, received notice that his contract would not be renewed without stated reasons.
- Through counsel, Lee demanded the specific reasons for nonrenewal and requested a public hearing.
- The school district’s attorney sent Lee a letter listing specific reasons for nonrenewal and stating that the district would present no evidence and that officials and board members could not be questioned.
- Lee read the letter and knew the content of the assertedly defamatory statements before any public hearing occurred.
- At the public hearing, Lee’s counsel asked the board to state on the record the reasons for nonrenewal as set out in the letter.
- The board orally repeated the letter’s contents at the hearing; Lee alleged this public repetition constituted defamatory publication.
- Lee sued school officials and board members for defamation; defendants asserted absolute privilege based on Lee’s consent.

## Issues

1. Whether a defamatory publication made at a public hearing is absolutely privileged when it occurs at the plaintiff’s request and with the plaintiff’s prior knowledge and consent.
2. Whether such consent bars a defamation action even if the statements would otherwise be defamatory.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the involuntary nonsuit for defendants.
- The court assumed for decision that the statements were defamatory.
- The court held the public repetition was absolutely privileged because Lee knowingly requested and consented to the publication.

## Legal Principles

- Publication of false and defamatory matter is absolutely privileged if the person defamed consents to the publication, subject to limited exceptions not applicable here (Restatement (First) of Torts § 583).
- Consent-based privilege does not depend on balancing competing public interests; consent removes the wrongful character of the publication.
- When a plaintiff knows the contents of the proposed statement and affirmatively requests its communication, the plaintiff cannot later recover for that publication in defamation.
- A request to repeat statements is not treated as nonconsensual merely because the repetition occurs in a public setting, where the public repetition is itself solicited by the plaintiff rather than made to correct an earlier public defamation.

## Conclusion

Because Lee knew the content of the reasons for nonrenewal and asked the board to state those reasons publicly, he consented to the alleged defamatory publication; that consent created an absolute privilege barring his defamation claim, so the nonsuit was properly affirmed.


Lee v. Paulsen, 273 Or. 103 (1975)