The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Defecation Defamation
Not to be confused with the more common defalcation defamation.
From Baumgarten v. EOTFR, a California Superior Court libel suit filed last Friday:
On or around August 15, 2019, defendant Ballard insinuated that Baumgarten had defecated on the bathroom floor of the New York office and interrogated Baumgarten about the defecation incident in the restroom in front of Santos. Defendant Ballard insinuated Baumgarten was responsible for the defecation because the defecation was reported after Baumgarten used the restroom. Later, word spread throughout the ICM offices that attributed Baumgarten to the defecation incident, and then subsequently, outside of ICM, including to other agencies and major studios.
Defendant Ballard wrongfully accused Baumgarten of these outrageous allegat[ions] knowing that once she leaked the mere subject matter that Baumgarten would be terminated and his reputation would be eviscerated.
Defendant ICM has a pattern and practice of defaming employees that they target and want to separate from the company, in order to ensure that the employee's reputation
in the industry is tarnished so that they will be unable to compete with Defendant ICM. Defendant ICM defames such employees in front of other company employees, the press, competitors and others in the entertainment community. There have been dozens of employees who have been subjected to this treatment….
Recall that this is just the plaintiff's side of the story; see the article in the Hollywood Reporter (Rebecca Sun) for more. Thanks to Glen Whitman for the pointer.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I anxiously await the coprophilic wordplay that will surely soon grace this comment section.
Good luck.
The New Jersey school administrator who sued over publication of his mugshot after being busted for pooping on/near a high school running track had his suit dismissed last week by the US District Court. https://www.app.com/story/news/local/courts/2019/09/30/judge-dumps-super-pooper-lawsuit-holmdel-mug-shot-thomas-tramaglini/3823202002/ He'd alleged, among other things, that he lost his career over the brouhaha and worldwide PR given his … mess.
He has now refiled the state-law claims in state court. https://www.nj.com/monmouth/2019/10/ex-nj-superintendent-who-admitted-pooping-at-hs-track-files-another-lawsuit-over-mugshot.html
I wonder how much a DNA analysis would cost nowadays. If it were cheap enough, and if losers paid court costs, the very threat of DNA analysis might be enough to smoke out the dumper.
"If it's not his shit, you must acquit!"
Nicely done. I would show my approval with a poop emoji if I could.
????
Darn. Tried it, but Reason converted it.
"the very threat of DNA analysis might be enough to smoke out the dumper."
I don't know if we should be surprised that there is precedent on employers' using DNA testing to ID workplace poopers. It turns out it doesn't work out very well for the employer.
... a California Superior Court libel sued filed last Friday ...
sued or suit?
Whoops, fixed, thanks.