## Facts

- Jeffrey R. Wilson and defendants Alexander Harvey, Michael Marcello, and Yixing Chen were undergraduates living on the same dormitory floor at Case Western Reserve University.
- While Wilson was away for a weekend in March 2004, Harvey and Marcello created computer-generated flyers portraying Wilson as homosexual and seeking a male companion.
- The flyers used Wilson’s photo (downloaded from a university website) and listed his name, university email address, and campus phone number.
- The text included sexually suggestive statements and listed stereotyped “interests,” and approximately 20 to 25 flyers were posted around the north side of campus.
- Wilson testified he was not homosexual, received numerous calls and emails about the flyers, and felt embarrassed, humiliated, and ridiculed; he also claimed loss of reputation, lost time, lower GPA, and added commuting expenses during a nine-day period.
- Harvey and Marcello testified the flyers were intended as a joke and retaliation for dorm-related conflicts; Chen knew about the flyers but did not help create or post them.
- Wilson sued for defamation, invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy.
- After Wilson’s case-in-chief at trial, defendants moved for a directed verdict under Ohio Civ.R. 50(A)(4); the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case.

## Issues

1. Whether falsely depicting Wilson as homosexual in the flyers constituted libel per se under Ohio law, permitting presumed damages.
2. Whether, viewing the evidence most strongly in Wilson’s favor, his proof was legally sufficient to submit claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy to the jury.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict for all defendants.
- The flyers’ depiction of Wilson as homosexual did not constitute libel per se under Ohio law.
- Because the statements were not defamatory per se, Wilson was required to prove actual reputational injury; his evidence showed embarrassment and subjective distress but not legally cognizable harm to reputation.
- Wilson’s invasion-of-privacy claim failed for lack of proof of an actionable privacy interest on the record presented.
- The civil conspiracy claim failed because it depended on an underlying unlawful act, and the substantive tort claims failed as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict is proper when, construing the evidence most strongly for the nonmovant, reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion adverse to that party; the motion tests legal sufficiency, not credibility.
- Libel per se requires words that are defamatory on their face and fall within recognized per se categories; absent libel per se, a plaintiff must prove actual damages.
- Mere embarrassment, humiliation, or conclusory assertions of “loss of reputation,” without evidence of compensable reputational harm, is insufficient to sustain a defamation claim when damages are not presumed.
- Invasion of privacy requires proof of the elements of a recognized privacy tort; offensive publicity alone does not establish liability without a legally protected privacy interest.
- Civil conspiracy requires a combination to injure plus an underlying unlawful act; it does not stand independently when the underlying tort claims fail.

## Conclusion

The court held that falsely portraying a person as homosexual was not libel per se under Ohio law and that, without proof of actual reputational injury or a viable privacy tort, Wilson’s claims could not reach the jury; because the substantive tort claims failed, the conspiracy claim also failed, making the directed verdict proper.


Wilson v. Harvey, 842 N.E.2d 83 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)