Tort: Defendants prevail in defamation suit by former employee

Where a man sued his former employer over articles referring to sexual assault allegations that led to his resignation, but the articles accurately reported that allegations were made, the defendants’ demurrer was sustained. The fact the former employee disputes the underlying validity of the accusation itself does not make reporting on the existence of accusations defamatory.

Background                                                       

Joe Alexander sued The Martin Agency, Kristen Cavallo and Martin’s parent company, the Interpublic Group of Companies Inc., for defamation. The defamation claim was based on four articles that Martin reposted on its website about Cavallo’s success at Martin. In discussing Cavallo’s ascension, the articles referred to the sexual assault allegations against Alexander that led to his resignation. Defendants demurred and the circuit court sustained the demurrer, finding that Alexander failed to state a claim.

Defamatory meaning

The circuit court found that none of the statements from the reposted articles identified by Alexander were “capable of a defamatory meaning,” reasoning that “any reference to the allegations of sexual harassment against [Alexander] were substantially accurate, as acknowledged in [Alexander]’s Complaint.” While Alexander denies the truth of the allegations, he does not dispute that the allegations were, in fact, made. Accordingly, Alexander challenges the truthfulness of what he reads to be implications that he actually committed the alleged misconduct.

The Supreme Court of Virginia has made clear that in cases of defamation by implication, the focus is on whether “the words and statements complained of in the instant case are reasonably capable of the meaning ascribed to them by innuendo” and that the “meaning of the alleged defamatory language can not, by innuendo, be extended beyond its ordinary and common acceptation.” “The province of the innuendo is to show how the words used are defamatory, and how they relate to the plaintiff, but it can not introduce new matter, nor extend the meaning of the words used, or make that certain which is in fact uncertain.”

Here, while the articles reference various sexual harassment allegations, they do not speak to the validity of the allegations; nor does the comparison of the environment at Martin before and after Cavallo imply wrongdoing on the part of Alexander. Additionally, this court disagrees that other statements made in the articles that mention the sexual harassment allegations against Alexander rise to the level of defamation by implication, as such an implication cannot be “reasonably drawn from the words actually used” in the articles.

The articles at issue in this case discuss changes in the culture at Martin, but not in a way that implies Alexander’s leaving was the sole determinant. They primarily focus on the impact of female-led leadership and how Cavallo’s perspective as a female CEO is changing the company, rather than the allegations specific to Alexander. Nor is the recounting of such allegations enough to insinuate that there was merit to the sexual assault allegations.

False statements

The next question to consider is whether the articles included false statements. They did not.

Alexander denies the truth underlying the allegations, but he does not dispute that the allegations were made. In fact, they are consistent with his own statements. Alexander states that in 2013, he entered into a confidential settlement agreement to resolve an accusation of sexual harassment made against him. While he maintains that “the complaint of sexual harassment was a lie,” he nevertheless admits that complaints were filed, and he was made aware of them.

Moreover, it is undisputed that Martin was in a public relations and perception crisis because of the scandal. The articles thus accurately describe the accusations made against Alexander. The fact that Alexander disputes the underlying validity of the accusation itself does not make reporting on the existence of accusations defamatory.

Affirmed.

            Alexander v. The Martin Agency, Record No. 0272-24-2, Sept. 9, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Causey). From the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (McClenney). Richard F. Hawkins, III (The Hawkins Law Firm, PC, on briefs), for appellant. Nicole Bergstrom (Maura J. Wogan; David B. Lacy; Grayson B. Cassada; Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, PC; Christian & Barton, LLP, on brief), for appellees. VLW 025-7-243. 9 pp.