## Facts

- William P. Tavoulareas was president and chief operating officer of Mobil Corporation and was publicly active in national debates over energy policy and the oil industry.
- Mobil pursued a Saudi shipping venture that used Atlas, a London-based shipping-management firm, for management services.
- The Washington Post published an investigative article stating, in substance, that William used his corporate influence to “set up” his son, Peter Tavoulareas, as a partner in a firm whose business included a lucrative Mobil-related contract.
- The “set up” narrative was attributed largely to an Atlas executive and was investigated for about a month by the reporter, followed by extensive editorial and legal review.
- Information supporting the account was corroborated in significant part by sources the plaintiffs viewed as reliable, and the primary source had given a substantially consistent account to a congressional subcommittee during a formal inquiry.
- William and Peter sued, alleging the article falsely implied nepotism and self-dealing and defamed them.

## Issues

1. Whether William Tavoulareas was a public figure (and, if so, what type) for purposes of constitutional defamation standards.
2. Whether the article’s central “set up” allegation was materially false or was substantially true.
3. Whether plaintiffs produced clear and convincing evidence that defendants published with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth).

## Decision

- The en banc court affirmed the district court’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict for all defendants.
- The court held William Tavoulareas was at least a limited-purpose public figure regarding the relevant public controversy.
- The court concluded the only reasonable inference from the record was that the “set up” allegation was substantially true.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A limited-purpose public figure must prove actual malice to recover for defamation concerning the controversy in which the plaintiff assumed a prominent role.
- “Actual malice” requires proof that the defendant published a statement knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth; negligence and poor judgment are insufficient.
- Substantial truth defeats defamation liability when the gist or sting of the challenged statement is true, even if some details are disputed.
- In public-figure defamation cases, courts must independently review the record to ensure the constitutional actual-malice standard is satisfied.

## Conclusion

The en banc court rejected the defamation verdict because the challenged allegation was substantially true and, in any event, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show that the reporter or publisher acted with actual malice when reporting on a matter of public concern involving a prominent corporate executive.


Tavoulareas v. Piro, 817 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (en banc)