No, Court Won't Order Removal of Online Copies of the Decision in Your Online Case, Even if

you argue that you're losing job opportunities because employers see that decision.

From Weiler v. Google LLC, decided yesterday by the Ohio Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Emanuella Groves, joined by Judges Michelle J. Sheehan and Sean C. Gallagher:

Shawn Weiler … appeals the trial court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Google LLC …; Portfolio Media, Inc., Justia, Unicourt Inc., Free Law Project, and Casetext, Inc., on his claim for libel.

On October 23, 2017, Weiler sued the Internal Revenue Service … in a dispute over his federal income tax. The records pertaining to the lawsuit were publicly available on Pacer, the federal court's electronic filing system. Weiler subsequently appealed the decision from his federal suit on August 1, 2019. During the four years that followed, Weiler had difficulty finding employment. He eventually learned from a job recruiter that a potential employer refused to hire him because an internet search of his name revealed the lawsuit and appeal against the government.

Weiler conducted his own internet search of his name, utilizing the Google search engine. The search returned the results of his federal lawsuit on several websites. Weiler attempted to remove any reference to the lawsuit from online public access….

In pertinent part, Weiler alleged that Google recklessly indexes websites with no regard for the consequences of its search results. Weiler claims that Pacer allows Google to return search results from its website without his permission, allowing access to his personal, sensitive information. As a result, Weiler's reputation has been damaged and he has been unable to obtain suitable employment….

Here, the subject of Weiler's libel claim are the court documents regarding his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. Notably, case documents are generally open to the public. Weiler claims public access to this information has affected his employment prospects. Due to the widespread public access to his lawsuit information, Weiler argues that falsity is not required to prove his libel claim. We disagree.

"'Truth is an absolute defense against a claim of defamation.'" … [F]acilitating public access to Weiler's information that may be unfavorable, although truthful, is not defamation. Given Weiler's failure to allege any false statement made by Appellees, his claim of defamation fails….

Since Weiler failed to allege falsity, he cannot prevail on his underlying claims. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied Weiler's motion for a temporary restraining order….

Defendants were represented by Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP and James A. Wilson; Karey E. Werner, Raymond V. Vasvari, Jr., and K. Ann Zimmerman (Vasvari | Zimmerman); Erin E. Rhinehart and Raika N. Casey (Faruki PLL); and Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP, and John C. Greiner.

Comments

[David Nieporent]

Given the obviously frivolous nature of the suit, I was hoping he was pro se… and he was. Even Stephen Biss might be reluctant to bring this claim.

[Martinned]

Libel? Really?

[ReaderY]

He had been sanctioned (fined $1000) for filing a frivolous lawsuit against the IRS. He’s probably lucky the Ohio courts didn’t do the same thing here.

Couldn’t tell what the nature of the underlying dispute or the sanctions was from a quick internet search. The district judge simply adopted the magistrate judge’s report in a perfunctory order without explaining the content of the report or the nature of the underlying dispute.

I wouldn’t think that getting into a tax dispute with the government would be something that would normally make one unemployable.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Characterizing it as a tax dispute is being awfully generous:

The matter concerns Weiler’s personal federal income tax returns for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. In each year, Weiler claimed he had no taxable income, although he admits he was employed during all of the relevant years, that the employer withheld federal tax from his paycheck during that time, and that he filed federal income tax returns for those years. On each of those returns, Weiler claimed no taxable income. Weiler received a refund for taxes withheld for 2014, as well as what he asserts was a partial refund for taxes withheld in 2016, but received no refund of taxes withheld for 2015.

Weiler contends that: (1) the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned income tax; (2) the federal income tax is an improper excise tax that cannot be levied in this case; and (3) Weiler is not subject to income tax because he is not a governmental employee.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Weiler contends that: (1) the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned income tax; (2) the federal income tax is an improper excise tax that cannot be levied in this case; and (3) Weiler is not subject to income tax because he is not a governmental employee.

So Weiler is a sovereign citizen nut case.

[SomeGuy 2]

Tax protestors and sovereign citizens are overlapping but distinct groups. Almost every sovereign city is probably a tax protestor, but not every tax protestor has bought the full-on sovereign citizen crazy. It's possible in principle to believe that, e.g., the Sixteenth wasn't properly ratified without believing in the magical distinction between traveling and driving.

[Krychek_2]

Oh, you don't need a driver's license to travel. You can walk, hitchhike (does anyone still hitchhike?), take a bus, have a friend drive you, call a taxi or Uber, ride a bicycle. Lots of choices.

But if you're going to drive a car, for that you need a license.

[Davy C]

But good luck getting anywhere without the government getting involved. Hitchhiking is illegal in some areas. Bicycles need registration. Amtrak requires ID, as well as most long-haul busses. As for paying for it, the government will spy on any banking you do and seize cash if you carry too much of it.

[y81]

Bicycles need registration? They do? Our bicycles aren't registered anywhere. Whom are we supposed to register them with?

[MatthewSlyfield]

"(3) Weiler is not subject to income tax because he is not a governmental employee."

I'm pretty sure that bit puts him solidly into sovereign citizen territory.

[markm23]

What sort of job was he looking for? If I were hiring a dry-wall installer, I wouldn't care what he thought of the income tax. OTOH, if I were hiring an accountant, I certainly would not want a nut who thought the income tax was unconstitutional keeping records that would be used in preparing my tax returns.

[SomeGuy 2]

Any employer who doesn't hire this guy made the right decision. These serial frivolous pro se types will find something to be mad about in the workplace, then eventually sue or threaten to sue. If the arguments presented in this appeal represent the quality of his thinking, cognitive jobs are just not for him. Looks like it's time to start working in restaurants. There's always openings and by necessity they screen their employees with much less rigor, hence back of house being a common job destination for ex-felons.

[jdgalt1]

There ought to be a “no retaliation for suing somebody, unless the suit was frivolous or fraudulent” rule written into the constitution. Because access to and use of the court system is a fundamental right.

Thus Weiler should not be able to get the record of his lawsuit hidden. But he should be able to get those who discriminated against him enjoined.

[David Nieporent]

Even if your proposed rule weren't stupid, he would fall under the 'unless the suit was frivolous or fraudulent" exception.

[Davy C]

No, he should not be able to get an injunction. (Unless they're doing it just because he filed a lawsuit in general, and not because of the content of the lawsuit.)

[Squire Al]

There is a real issue with access to information in a law suite via Pacer and Google in cases involving claims for Social Security disability benefits. Of necessity, when such a case is filed, if with the thin veil of using only the first name and last initial in the published decision, the name of the Plaintiff can be accessed easily through PACER where the full name appears on the Docket. And the decision, but not the underlying medical records, is accessible which will contain detailed discussions of medical findings. It is clear that there are people who will not file such cases for fear of that information being disclosed publicly. There may be no way around this but that doesn't mean its not an issue. And idiot cases like this don't help the matter.

[Archibald Tuttle]

He should move to the EU. Then he could use the GDPR to get his stuff taken down.

Do US courts recognize GDPR takedown requests? If not, does the EU threaten to sanction US governments?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Right, this falls squarely within the "right to be forgotten" nonsense being pushed within the EU by unhinged "privacy advocates". That could not happen in the US.

Sometimes, having a Constitution is worth the trouble...

[Martinned]

We have a constitution too, and it protects our right to privacy. Which is a useful thing to have because, as jdgalt points out above, this guy deserved to be sanctioned by the courts, but he did not deserve to be made permanently unemployed by his fellow citizens.

[Davy C]

Permanently unemployed? Please. I'm sure there are some places that won't hire him, but if he couldn't find work in the last few years then he wasn't applying for the right jobs, because I know the place I work for was hiring and we weren't exactly picky. If we were hiring people with ankle monitors, we sure weren't going to turn down a guy just because of a random stupid lawsuit.

There are *lots* of things you can do that will lessen your chances of being employed. Being unemployed, for starters. Not getting a diploma or degree. I don't think you have a right to point to an employer and say "These guys have to hire me. I'm an idiot who files frivolous lawsuits and they know it, but they have to ignore that."