## Facts

- Ana Rocci, a New Jersey high-school teacher, and Edward Tilli, a Canadian high-school teacher, jointly led student groups on a 1995 school trip to Spain.
- After the trip, Tilli sent a May 9, 1995 letter to Rocci’s principal complaining about Rocci’s conduct on the trip.
- The letter alleged unprofessional behavior, including heavy alcohol consumption during travel and poor supervision of students.
- The letter was sent only to Rocci’s supervisor and concerned a teacher’s conduct around students.
- The principal imposed no discipline, and Rocci identified no concrete employment consequences or specific pecuniary loss attributable to the letter.
- Rocci sued for defamation and sought recovery based on presumed damages rather than proof of actual reputational or economic harm.

## Issues

1. Whether a private-figure teacher may recover presumed damages for allegedly defamatory statements in a letter to her supervisor about conduct around students without proving actual harm.
2. Whether, given the subject matter and limited publication, First Amendment protections required Rocci to prove “actual malice” to obtain presumed damages and survive summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed summary judgment for defendants, on reasoning different from the Appellate Division.
- The court held the letter implicated interests warranting heightened free-speech protection because it addressed a teacher’s conduct around students and was directed only to school administration.
- The court ruled presumed reputational or pecuniary harm was unavailable absent proof of “actual malice” (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth).
- Rocci failed to produce evidence creating a triable issue of actual malice and failed to show concrete reputational or pecuniary harm traceable to the letter.

## Legal Principles

- When speech warrants heightened constitutional protection, presumed damages for defamation are restricted unless the plaintiff proves “actual malice.”
- “Actual malice” requires evidence the defendant published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
- A communication to school authorities about a teacher’s conduct toward students may be treated as implicating public interests sufficient to trigger heightened protection limiting traditional defamation damages rules.
- In the absence of actual malice, a plaintiff must produce evidence of actual reputational or pecuniary harm to proceed.

## Conclusion

The court upheld summary judgment because a teacher could not rely on presumed damages for a supervisor-directed report about student-related conduct without evidence of actual malice, and the record showed neither actual malice nor demonstrable harm.


Rocci v. Ecole Secondaire Macdonald-Cartier, 165 N.J. 149, 755 A.2d 583 (N.J. 2000)