At press time, the Chronicle learned that Beverly Industries had dropped its suit against Kate Bronfenbrenner. See next week's issue for details.
Cornell labor researcher Kate Bronfenbrenner talks with Chris Arthur (Cornell M.A. '75, Ph.D. '76), senior counsel to U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, about Hinchey's efforts in support of the amicus brief in Bronfenbrenner's legal case. Office of Maurice Hinchey
U.S. Rep. Lane Evans (D-Ill.) sponsored a briefing for the media and members of Congress July 27 at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., in support of Kate Bronfenbrenner, Cornell director of labor education research, who was sued in February in federal court by nursing home giant Beverly Enterprises Inc. for defamation over testimony she gave last year at a congressional town hall meeting. The lawsuit was dismissed in May, but in early June, Beverly filed a motion to amend its complaint. When that, too, was dismissed, the company filed an appeal with a federal appeals panel.
Evans is soliciting congressional co-signers for an amicus brief to be filed with the court on behalf of the Cornell labor researcher and Rosemary Trump, a member of the Service Employees International Union who also was sued by Beverly. Bronfenbrenner and officials of the American Association of University Professors and the Service Employees International Union spoke at the recent Capitol Hill briefing.
Here are excerpts from the briefing, including a statement from Evans read by a member of his staff:
Kate Bronfenbrenner: "In May 1997 I was invited by Congressman Lane Evans and his cosponsors of H.R. 1624, the 'Federal Procurement and Assistance Integrity Act,' to testify at a congressional town hall meeting as an academic expert on the employment practices of Beverly Enterprises. Beverly, a for-profit health care chain, is one of the nation's largest nursing home operators and, as reflected in the public record, including determinations by the National Labor Relations Board and decisions of the federal courts, has been one of the nation's most notorious labor law violators. To my great shock and dismay, nine months later, on February 9, 1998, I learned that Beverly Enterprises had filed a defamation suit against me in Federal Court in Pittsburgh for my remarks at the hearing, seeking more than $225,000 in damages. In addition to the suit they also served a massive request for production of documents, including copies of all of the confidential survey data relating to my ten years of research into employer and union behavior.
"I am relieved to report that on Friday, May 22, 1998, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster dismissed the suit against me on the grounds that my statements were made as part of a legislative proceeding, the town hall meeting, and that such statements are protected by legislative immunity under Pennsylvania state law. A few weeks later on June 9, 1998, Beverly filed a motion to amend their earlier complaint, seeking another $225,000 for statements I made on National Public Radio in a story about the dismissal of my case. Beverly claimed that by saying on NPR 'Morning Edition' that 'I spoke the truth' in my testimony before Congress, I reincorporated and restated all of my testimony in an unprivileged setting not covered by testimonial immunity. Along with the amended complaint, Beverly once again sent a very broad and extensive demand for documentation relating to my research. Fortunately, Judge Lancaster moved quickly to dismiss Beverly's motion to amend the complaint.
"From the very beginning, I, and the Cornell University attorneys representing me, have been confident that we would win on the merits of the case, not just on the issue of testimonial immunity, but on the broader issues of academic freedom as well. Even putting aside the findings in my research, a review of the public record alone demonstrates that my comments were accurate. Beverly, too, must know that their case against me has no merit, but rather is a thinly veiled attempt to silence me and intimidate other scholars and researchers who speak out about their research findings on corporate behavior in the workplace and the broader community.
"I am deeply gratified that not only has the lawsuit against me been dismissed, but perhaps most important, the shadow of discovery has been lifted from my door. Judge Lancaster's decision prevents Beverly from pursuing their effort to gain access to my confidential research data on union and employer behavior in organizing and first contract campaigns. This is a relief not only to me, but to the people I surveyed, and to all other researchers in other fields who have been watching my case very carefully. For, if Beverly were to succeed in gaining access to any of my data, researchers across the country would be hesitant to speak about their findings publicly, in articles, lectures, speeches and congressional hearings, for fear that they, too, might be forced to hand over their raw data to the very groups their research criticized."
Statement from Rep. Lane Evans: "This lawsuit has serious implications for Congress. Dr. Bronfenbrenner and Ms. Trump made their statements in a legislative setting. The First Amendment protects statements made in congressional proceedings, under a right known as "legislative privilege," which allows Americans to petition Congress and freely speak their minds without legal ramifications. When someone is invited to give their views to a member of Congress, they should be able to do so without reprisal or interference.
"The academic community is also jeopardized, as lawsuits like these can stifle and virtually extinguish academic research -- when scholars like Dr. Bronfenbrenner cease publishing their work for fear of legal repercussion. Because Congress relies on a steady supply of research and information provided by think tanks, academics and research institutions, Beverly vs. Bronfenbrenner and Trump seriously threatens the role of scholarship in formulating sound public policy."
Jonathan Alger, counsel at the American Association of University Professors (which has 44,000 faculty members at colleges and universities across the country): "The association is deeply concerned that Beverly Enterprises' lawsuit against Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner is an effort to straight-jacket academic inquiry on controversial subjects. ... The defamation suit amounts to an assault on academic freedom. ...
"This suit raises the specter that professors and researchers will trim their professional sails in presenting and discussing their work with legislators, journalists and even with colleagues at conferences and meetings.
"Such a suit has the potential to destroy important existing and proposed scholarship. Academic researchers and funders may be hesitant to undertake work on hotly debated policy issues. Potential research subjects may be reluctant to participate in research if they know a lawsuit might force the researchers to reveal the data, and academic researchers may not pursue such research for fear they will not be able to protect their sources.
"Academics do not enjoy a special privilege to defame, but academic freedom is fundamental for the benefit of society. If research has errors, the remedy should be countervailing speech, not a legal inquisition.
"The association supports Professor Bronfenbrenner's efforts to have Beverly's defamation lawsuit dismissed. AAUP filed an amicus brief at the trial level, and we are prepared to do so at the appellate level. We are working closely with Professor Bronfenbrenner to protect her right of academic freedom. The trial court's decision to dismiss the defamation suit against Professor Bronfenbrenner should be upheld."
| Cornell Chronicle Front Page | | Table of Contents | | Cornell News Service Home Page |