Simon's suit may pivot on UA privacy efforts
Miles Simon's invasion of privacy case against the UA may hinge on how
vigorously the university attempted to protect the basketball player's
transcripts.
The Orlando Magic guard sued the University of Arizona, the Kansas
City Star and others, alleging defamation and invasion of privacy over a
1997 article that used information from Simon's transcripts to detail his
poor academic record.
The UA might be able to successfully defend itself by showing it had
adequate measures in place to prevent such releases, and that it wasn't
done in the course of an employee's duties, said Michael Piccarreta, a
Tucson attorney and former president of the State Bar of Arizona.
Piccarreta talked about Simon's case in general terms but declined to
make specific comments because he wasn't familiar enough with the case.
The UA has declined to comment on the lawsuit, but the editor and vice
president of the Kansas City Star said yesterday that it is meritless.
"We believe the story was accurate and fair," Mark Zieman said.
"Moreover, the Kansas City Star tried several times to solicit comment
from Miles Simon but he did not respond.''
The article stated that Simon was allowed to continue playing because of
exceptions the UA made in its academic policies.
The $1 million lawsuit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, alleges that
an unnamed UA employee leaked Simon's transcripts to the Star.
Student transcripts are protected by federal law.
Because of the article, the lawsuit states, Simon "was held up to public
ridicule and his privacy was invaded, and he was humiliated and made to
suffer embarrassment."
Zieman declined to comment further about the lawsuit, but local attorneys
said Simon's celebrity could be the paper's defense.
"Certainly, Miles Simon is a public figure," Piccarreta said.
Under law, public figures have less of an expectation of privacy. Plus, the
Kansas City Star enjoys the protections afforded to the press under the
U.S. Constitution, Piccarreta said.
"Media is, by its nature, always invading people's privacy. And they're
also wrapped around the flagpole and the First Amendment," he said. "It
is much harder to sue the media for invasion of privacy."
Simon, who has declined to comment on the lawsuit, could argue against
the public-figure defense by saying that he is a public figure only in the
athletic arena and that his academic record is unrelated, said Gerald
Maltz, who specializes in civil litigation.
"Just because he's a public figure doesn't mean that everything he does is
of legitimate concern to the general public," said Maltz, who, like
Piccarreta, declined to talk specifically about Simon's case.
The advantage in pursuing an invasion of privacy case is that the law in
that area is not as "settled," Maltz said.
"Invasion of privacy is something that is being increasingly used by
victims of defamation to get around some of the constitutional defenses of
a defamation case," he said.
The defenses in a defamation case, similar to those in an invasion of
privacy case, include:
* The defendant was a public figure.
* The information was available from other sources and therefore not
private.
* The person was not harmed as a result of the act.