Local residents, radio station immune from defamation suit brought by high school coach and athletic director, state appellate court holds 

An Illinois appellate court dismissed defamation actions brought by a former school employee against numerous defendants, including several local residents and a local radio station, finding they were immune from liability under the Illinois Citizen Participation Act (the "Act"), an anti-SLAPP statute. 

Anti-SLAPP statutes protect persons against strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP's), or lawsuits that are intended to censor or silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense. Although SLAPP lawsuits originally were defined as involving a right to petition and a matter of public concern, the Illinois statute has broader definition.  

In particular, the Act provides that activities in furtherance of rights to petition, speak, assemble and otherwise participate in government are immune from liability. The Act is not limited to matters of social or civic concern. The Act also requires a court to award attorneys' fees to a party that prevails on a motion to dismiss.  

In Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2010 WL 4102998 (2d Dist. 2010), several local residents campaigned to remove the plaintiff, Dixon High School's athletic director and basketball coach Steve Sandholm, because they disagreed with his coaching style.  

Several local residents formed a group titled, "Save Dixon Sports Committee." One of its members authored and published an article on the committee's Web site, accusing the plaintiff of being excessively abusive and humiliating and bullying players. The committee then sent a petition to the school board to remove the plaintiff. The petition also was posted on the committee's Web site. Statements made by some of the committee members also were published in several local news outlets, including a local radio station. 

The school district removed the plaintiff as the basketball coach on April 23, 2008, although he continued to work as the school's athletic director. The board removed him as the athletic director the following year.  

The plaintiff brought defamation actions against the defendants. The defendants then filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that the Act barred the plaintiff's claims. Additionally, defendants alleged that the statements were protected opinions; that plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting actual malice, which was required because the plaintiff was a public figure; and that the plaintiff failed to state all elements of each claim.  

The trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. It also awarded defendants' attorneys' fees for portions of the case that dealt with application of the Act.

The appellate court affirmed. In so doing, it noted that that the legislators' intent was to adopt the standard in City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, 499 U.S. 365 (1991).  The doctrine provides that actions are immune from liability, even if the speaker is motivated by an illegal purpose in motivating government action, so long as they constitute a genuine effort to procure government action.  

The court found that the defendants' actions were protected under the Act because they acted in furtherance of their desire that the school board remove the plaintiff as a coach and athletic director.