Columbia Ph.D. Student #TheyLied Libel Suit Over Allegations of Stalking and Abuse Can Go Forward

From Thursday's decision by N.Y. trial judge Dakota Ramseur in Talbert v. Tynes, rejecting defendants' motion to dismiss:

In his complaint, Talbert alleges that Tynes, an acquaintance and former Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University, made various posts to Twitter in November 2021 concerning their interactions as students that accused him of stalking and of being generally abusive and manipulative towards women. More specifically, Tynes' tweets responded to a photograph shared by third party Derecka Purnell, a prominent scholar and author on Black History, that identified Talbert as being "in the tradition of black liberation theology" and as "legendary James Cone's last student." Tynes reposted the image with the caption, "If I speak, Twitter will suspend me," followed by two tweets: "Not the abolitionist [Purnell] with my stalker," and "That man has harmed multiple women and is abusive and manipulative, but congrats on his dissertation, I guess."

Talbert contends that these statements were false, published with actual malice, and caused reputational, emotional, and professional harm.

In support of her … motion to dismiss, Tynes submitted an affidavit describing the context of her prior interactions with him and the alleged basis for her public tweets. In it, she explains that they both attended Columbia University as graduate students between 2017 and 2020, enrolled in a Spring 2018 seminar titled DuBois@150, and participated in a shared study group.

According to her, during the seminar, Talbert would sit across from her, stare at her, and move physically closer without speaking. On or about April 25, 2018, while walking to class, Talbert allegedly followed her, remarked, "that was one of three creepy ways I thought to approach you," and showed her photos he had taken of her walking. Tynes further alleges that Talbert asked where she lived, whether she lived alone, if anyone would notice if she did not come home, whether she drank or used drugs, and then invited her to become inebriated with him.

Around this time, she disclosed her discomfort with Talbert's conduct to their study group and stated that she did not want to be around him. In response, Talbert accused her of bullying, which prompted her to leave the group. The next semester, at a Fall 2018 Welcome Back Mixer, Tynes avers that Talbert made unwanted sexual advances toward her and, after she rejected them, he conspicuously followed her around the event—behavior that, she alleges, was observed by a Columbia University employee.

Following the September 2018 mixer, Tynes asked classmates to inform her if Talbert would be attending social events because she did not want to see or speak to him. She also reached out to Columbia University's Sexual Violence Response (hereinafter, "SVR") office, where an unnamed counselor "identified Talbert's actions as stalking/harassing behavior" and advised her to send an email asking him not to contact her anymore. Tynes sent this email on September 20, 2018, in which she wrote: "please do not talk to me or approach me. I'm not interested in being friends or anything more, and it makes me uncomfortable when you comment on my appearance."

The letter notwithstanding, in February 2019, Tynes alleges she encountered Talbert in a nail salon near Columbia University campus, where he stared at her without saying anything until she left. In March 2019, a second counselor in Columbia University's "Student Conduct and Community Standards" Office reached out to Tynes. While the source of its knowledge is unclear, in the letter, the counselor notes that the office "received limited information alleging that you experienced behavior that may meet the definition of Gender-Based Misconduct." Tynes does not allege that she followed up and met with this counselor to discuss the allegations as the letter invites.

Lastly, Tynes alleges that, through conversations with close friends, she "learned that she was not the only Black woman Talbert had harmed. I was informed of additional instances through friends I trusted of him manipulating and acting abusively towards other women." This stand-alone averment does not specify from who she received this knowledge nor precisely the conduct she alleged was manipulative or abusive.

Talbert's affidavit disputes the surrounding context provided by Tynes. He avers that his first conversation with Tynes took place as small talk while both were on their way to the same seminar location and that he did not say "that was one of three creepy ways I thought to approach you" or show her pictures that he had taken of her. As to the allegations of misconduct within their study group, Talbert disputes the very existence of a shared study group.

He also avers (1) his conversation with plaintiff at the 2018 Welcome Back Mixer was limited to pleasantries and lasted but a brief moment and (2) he often frequented the salon near campus but never saw her in February 2019 let alone silently stared at her. In March 2018, around the same time Tynes received her letter from Columbia, Talbert filed a report with the same Student Conduct and Community Standards office, in which he sought Columbia's assistance regarding Tynes' false accusations that she was making to mutual friends and acquaintances. Around this same time, he also sought counsel from Columbia's Department of Counsel and Psychological Services. On December 9, 2021, Talbert's counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter to Columbia's Department of Anthropology. In all, Talbert contends that the tweets were defamatory per se and published with knowledge of thier falsity or reckless disregard for the truth….

The court concludes that Tynes' statements were statements of fact, and could thus form a basis for a defamation claim:

First, on its own, the fact that Tynes' statements were intended to convey her subjective interpretation of Talbert's behavior does not change whether the statements can be construed as conveying facts. Regardless, the term "stalker" is capable of a precise definition, even if the term does not constitute defamation per se. (See New York Penal Law 240.26 [defining the term stalker as "a person who pursues someone obsessively and aggressively to the point of harassment"]; Rivas v Restaurant Assoc., Inc., 223 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2024] [similar terms such as "pedophile" and "child molester" capable of being true or false and is not subjective in nature].) That "stalker," like these terms, is capable of evoking a specific allegation of criminality is what separates Tynes' statement from those considered in cases such as Farber v Jefferys (103 AD3d 514 [1st Dept 2013] [name calling someone as "no good" and "a criminal" was an opinion and not actionable]), Polish American Immigration Relief Committee Inc. v Relax (189 AD2d 370 [no reasonable person would conclude that actual criminality was charged by the epithets "thieves" and "false do-gooders"]) and Ganske v Mensch (480 F. Supp. 3d 542, 553 [SDNY 2020] [term "xenophobic" not a statement of fact because it is incapable of being proven true]).

Moreover, the surrounding context of the Tynes' tweet does not suggest that it was intended "colloquially" as she asserts. To begin, it is unclear what the purported difference between the "colloquial" sense of "stalker"—which, according to her, refers to Talbert "repeatedly following and pursuing her in a way that made her feel threatened"—and what might be considered an objective, literal usage of the word.

But even assuming a difference, in using the personal pronoun "my" stalker, Tynes suggests a unique, private familiarity with Talbert's conduct, one that, even on Twitter, would imply to the reasonable reader that she had personal knowledge that he engaged in the conduct charged—the specifics of which she chose to withhold in the posts.¹ Notably, any qualifying or excessive language that otherwise might negate the impression that she meant "stalker" literally is entirely absent from her posts. And by reposting the "stalker" statement in conjunction with and immediately after "If I speak, Twitter will suspend me," Tynes only highlights the seriousness and sincerity of her allegations, which, in the surrounding context, the potential reader may very well be more inclined to interpret as statements of fact.

The comments that Talbert has "harmed multiple women" and was "abusive and manipulative" are also actionable. Though both have a more nebulous, less precise meaning than "stalker," both support her previous claim that he stalked her without offering the basis or identifying the source of her knowledge. This is especially true as plaintiff admits that she did not personally observe his harming or abusive behavior towards multiple women.

And the court held that Talbert had sufficiently alleged that Tynes' statements were knowingly false (though of course at this point these are just allegations):

In his affidavit, Talbert directly refutes each of Tynes's allegations. He avers that his personal interactions with her were incidental, brief, and never threatening. He denies making inappropriate remarks, following her, taking pictures of her, or engaging in any conduct that could be reasonably construed as stalking or harassment. He also disputes the existence of a shared study group and states that he never made unwanted advances or sent harassing messages. His denials, if true, entirely refute her allegations that is a "stalker" who "harmed multiple women."

Moreover, Talbert's denials are supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence, including a 2019 report he filed with Columbia University's Student Conduct and Community Standards office, in which he sought assistance regarding what he described as false accusations Tynes was spreading to mutual acquaintances. He also engaged with Columbia's Department of Counseling and Psychological Services around the same time, as reflected in a documented appointment confirmation. These records, created over two years before the tweets at issue, bolster the credibility of his version of events and provide the relevant proof that a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a finding of both falsity and actual malice.

In finding that Talbert's affidavit and corroborating evidence sufficiently shows a substantial basis for his defamation claim, the Court notes that each party has filed conflicting "self-serving" affidavits, each with some degree of corroborating evidence, though neither party's submissions entirely refute the other's position. With respect to Tynes' evidence, it is worth pointing out that she did not attach affidavits from anyone of her friends from whom she derived the "abusive and manipulative" post, from the counselor in Columbia's SVR office with whom she met to discuss Talbert's conduct, or from the alleged university employee who observed Talbert's behavior at the 2018 mixer. By resting such significant portions of her motion on her factual averments, Tynes' evidence is not so convincing that Talbert's own affidavit cannot serve as an adequate rebuttal….