Quantcast

Appeals court backs decision to dismiss firefighter's defamation suit against Palm Beach officials

FLORIDA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Appeals court backs decision to dismiss firefighter's defamation suit against Palm Beach officials

Lawsuits
General court 02

shutterstock.com

WEST PALM BEACH – A state appeals court panel recently affirmed a lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in a Palm Beach firefighter's defamation suit against town officials.

The July 25 decision by Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal affirm the decision of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in Palm Beach County to dismiss the suit against Palm Beach officials, citing lack of evidence, immunity of the elected officials involved and the expiration of the state’s statute of limitations.

The decision stems from a claim filed by former town firefighter Jason Weeks on Dec. 9, 2015, in which he accused town officials of executing a conspiracy to defame him, later resulting in his termination from the Palm Beach Fire Rescue Department.

“The appellees were immune from claims for defamation and Weeks filed the lawsuit beyond the applicable two-year statute of limitations,” Appeals Judges Dorian Damoorgian and Jeffrey Kuntz said in their decision.

In Florida, the statute of limitations for a defamation suit is two years. The events that Weeks refers to in his initial complaint occurred in 2012.

Weeks’ suit named Palm Beach Town Manager Peter Elwell, Director of Public Safety Kirk Blouin, Deputy Fire Chief Darrel Donatto and Deputy Police Chief Dan Szarszewski, among others.

The accusations are related to an investigation by the town officials regarding a website Weeks built that detailed the town’s proposed changes to the fire department’s pension plan. His supervisor, William Amador, was later fired for his role in the site’s creation.

Weeks states in his suit that town officials began their campaign to defame him soon afterward.

The court said that since town officials were acting in an official capacity during the investigations, anything they said at that time was protected by absolute privilege.

“The statements made by the appellees were protected by absolute privilege from claims for defamation, no matter how false, malicious, or badly motivated,” Damoorgian and Kuntz said in their ruling.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News