The trial court erred in ruling in favor of Peggy Mitchell and failing to consider Tiffany Flower's lost wages. Tiffany sued Peggy for libel and punitive damages after Peggy published a short story referring to Tiffany as a "slut" without changing her name. As a result, Tiffany suffered emotional distress, lost her job and wages, and received harassing phone calls. The appellate brief argues the elements of libel and defamation per se were met under Minnesota law, entitling Tiffany to damages for her losses.

1. 1
Statement of the Issues
I. The trial court improperly ruled in favor of Peggy Mitchell
II. The trial court erred in failing to consider Tiffany Flower’s lost wages from losing
her job as summer camp director.
Statement of the Case
Peggy Mitchell submitted a short story to a national magazine based on a conflict she had
as a teenage girl with another girl named Tiffany Flowers. She did not change Tiffany’s name in
the story in which she refers to her as a “slut.” As a result of the story being published, Tiffany
suffered emotionally, experienced mental anguish, and lost her job at the YMCA.
Tiffany sued Peggy for libel and punitive damages. Judge Antonson in Hennepin County
District Court found Peggy not liable for libel or the related punitive damages. Tiffany is
appealing the trial court’s decision. The Appellate brief being filed in the Minnesota Court of
Appeals is arguing that the decision be overturned.
Statement of the Facts
Peggy Mitchell was trying to become a successful fiction writer. She responded to a
contest in a national magazine and submitted a short story. Peggy won the contest and her short
story was published in an edition of the magazine in 2014. The short story, while fictional, was
based on an experience of Peggy’s as a teenager involving a conflict with another girl over a boy.
The other girl involved was Tiffany Flowers. In the story which is written in the first person,
Peggy described Tiffany as a “slut.” Peggy did not change Tiffany’s name in the story.
As a result of the story, Tiffany suffered emotionally and experienced mental anguish.
After the story was published, Tiffany received many prank calls as well as disparaging
comments from the residents of her hometown, where she still lives. Tiffany also lost her job as
the summer camp director at the neighborhood YMCA and as a result experienced lost wages.
Summary of the Argument
Libel and defamation are torts that should never be taken lightly in society. Libel which
imputes want of chastity should especially be taken seriously in our society. This is a case where
the elements of Libel and defamation per se were met by Peggy Mitchell. There are several
examples when examining Minnesota case law and statutes, where elements of libel and
defamation involving name-calling are met and damages thus awarded to plaintiff.
In the short story that Peggy Mitchell wrote was published referred to Tiffany Flowers as
a “slut.” Her name was not changed. This derogatory term which could not be misunderstood or
interpreted any other way is both defamatory under Minnesota law, and is the reason for the
mental distress, embarrassment and lowering of reputation in the community for Tiffany
Flowers which should entitle her to the punitive damages. To support an award of punitive
damages, there must be clear and convincing evidence establishing that respondent acted in
conscious or intentional disregard for the high probability that his statement would cause
appellant harm. Minnesota statutes list several factors that measure punitive damage awards.
Longbehn v. Schoenrock. 727 N.W.2d 153 (2007)

2. 2
Argument
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLEE NOT LIABLE FOR
LIBEL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES BECAUSE THE ELEMENTS OF LIBEL
AND DEFAMATION ARE SATISFIED
a. Because the elements of libel and defamation were met by the facts in this case, the
court should not have ruled in favor of appellee. In this case the issue of whether or
not the use of a derogatory name towards a person in a published short story was
enough to claim libel and to get punitive damages. Under Minn. Stat. 549.20 Punitive
damages will be allowed in civil actions if there is clear and convincing evidence that
the acts of the defendant show intentional disregard for the facts which create a high
probability of injury to the rights other person. In this case Peggy Mitchell knew that
Tiffany Flowers was not a slut and was calling her that in the context of their dispute
over a boy. In Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153,162 (2007) a police officer
was referred to as “Pat the Pedophile.” He brought a defamation claim which was
dismissed by the court. He appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and
remanded because the statement made against the appellant was defamatory per se.
He did not have to prove actual harm in order to recover damages.
In comparison to our case the appellant was called a slut in appellee’s
publication. Because of the nature of the word used against the appellant, the
publicized name calling should be defamatory per se in that actual harm to the
appellant should not have to be proved because the appellant lost wages, lost her job,
and lost standing in her community because of a claim that was essentially not true.
In Williams v. Davenport 42 Minn. 393 (1890) the Supreme Court of Minnesota
stated that “An action will lie for the publication of words which directly tend to
prejudice or injure one in his office, profession, trade, or business.” The libel which
Peggy Mitchell committed against Tiffany Flowers directly affected her standing in
the community and was the cause of her lost job, thus loss of wages.
Additionally in Dressel v. Shipman, 57 Minn. 23 (1894) the Minnesota
Supreme Court ruled that “Any publication calculated to expose one to public hatred,
contempt, or ridicule is libelous per se.” In this case the libelous publication towards
Tiffany Flowers to the prank calls and disparaging comments from the residents in
her hometown. This can reasonably be interpreted as public hatred, contempt, or
ridicule.
In Knox v. Meehan, 64 Minn. 280 (1896) the Minnesota Supreme Court had a
libel case before it where a newspaper referred to an individual as a religious
hypocrite among other things. They ruled similarly that “The article in question was
extremely well calculated to prejudice and injure the individual so well described
therein, and to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.” There is no
question in this case that Tiffany Flowers was the individual targeted in Peggy

3. 3
Mitchell’s story and that the use of the name slut was going to bring upon her public
contempt, ridicule etc. She lost her job and was harassed.
In order to decide a libel case the court must consider the Defamation statute in
Minnesota. Minn Stat. 609.765 Subd. 1 states that: “Defamatory matter is anything
which exposes a person or a group, class or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule,
degradation or disgrace in society, or injury to business or occupation.” Minn. Stat
609.765 Subd. 2 states that:
“Whoever with knowledge of its defamatory character orally, in writing or by any
other means, communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the
consent of the person defamed is guilty of criminal defamation and may be sentenced
to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than
$3,000, or both.”
In this case, the defamatory word used was publicized in a national magazine and
without consent of the appellant. The appellee failed to properly edit her story in
order to protect the identity of the appellant thus subjecting her to ridicule,
degradation, and disgrace in society which happened to be the community she had
always resided in. The burden here should be on Peggy Mitchell to prove that the
claim she made in her story was true and could be backed up by a factual analysis.
In Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star Tribune Co., 390 N.W. 2d 437 (1986) the appellant
brought action against the newspaper for libel in which the newspaper falsely stated
that Jadwin had misrepresented his background to the deputy commissioner of
securities. The newspaper motioned for summary judgment claiming the plaintiff
Jadwin had to prove actual malice. On appeal the court held that “a private plaintiff
does not have to prove actual malice, but may recover actual damages for a
defamatory publication upon proof that the defendant knew or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have known that the defamatory publication was false.”
Additionally “Expressions of opinion, rhetoric, and figurative language are generally
not actionable if, in context, the audience would understand the statement is not a
representation of fact.” It appears from this current case that Peggy Mitchell was not
stating the word slut as a matter of material fact but rather as her opinion which had
no truth to it, either in the mind of Tiffany Flowers or in the minds of the readers.
In Stuempges v. Parke, 297 N.W. 2d 252,259 (1980) an employee brought a
defamation action against employer for statements made in employment
recommendation. The jury found the employer liable for defamation and that the
employee was entitled to punitive and compensatory damages. The employer
appealed and the Supreme Court held that the jury was correct in finding that the
employer acted with malice, and that the statements were not true. Additionally the
trial court correctly instructed the jury using common-law definition of malice and
that damages were properly awarded to employee. In this case if the proper jury
instructions on defamation and malice had been given to the trial court then Peggy
Mitchell would have been found liable for libel/defamation and punitive damages
would be awarded Tiffany Flowers.

4. 4
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER APPELLANT’S LOST
WAGES AND JOB IN RULING IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE BECAUSE UNDER
MINNESOTA LAW, IF THE STATEMENT OR STATEMENTS DIRECTLY
INJURES THE OCCUPATION OF THE PERSON IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST IT IS
CONSIDERED DEFAMATORY MATTER.
A. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in a libel or defamation case
the court must consider lost wages, lost reputation, and standing in the community.
Jury instructions on when to consider these elements when determining damages in a
libel case were not given.
As a result of the defamatory language used against appellant, appellant lost standing
and reputation in her community and also lost her job as summer camp director at the
YMCA. In Loftsgaarden v. Reiling, 267 Minn. 181, 126 N.W.2d 154 (1964) the court
ruled that when words are defamatory per se, punitive damages are recoverable
without proof of actual damages. To support an award of punitive damages, there
must be clear and convincing evidence establishing that respondent acted in
conscious or intentional disregard for the high probability that his statement would
cause appellant harm.”
B. Standard of Review in such cases for the appellate court is usually to rule in a light
most favorable to the appellee. Exception to this may apply if there is an established
untruth about the party against whom it is made, and that the appellee can establish
the essential element of the claim.
In this case Peggy Mitchell referred to Tiffany Flowers as a slut in her story which
was published by the national magazine. The use of the word slut is generally used
not to state a material fact that can be established by any concrete evidence unless
appellant refers to herself as such and documented by appellee. The word was used in
the context of their dispute over a boy. Additionally if the word, when read by the
third party is understood to be true by the third party then there is no merit to this
appeal. However, in this case the use of the word slut is used by Peggy Mitchell as an
opinion which has no truth to it. The "third party" or readers of the magazine story in
this case knew of no truth to the name slut being used in reference to Tiffany.
Nonetheless they still subjected her to prank phone calls and disparaging comments.
If there was any shred of truth to it, that is, evidence that can be backed up by Peggy
Mitchell than she is truly not liable for libel/defamation and punitive damages.

5. 5
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant Tiffany Flowers requests this court to reverse
the district court’s ruling, and find Appellee Peggy Mitchell liable for libel and punitive
damages.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Dan Williams, Attorney for Appellant
Minnesota Bar # 028709X
Williams, Johnson, and Williams
500 IDS Center, South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402