The Honor able Richa rd Mills, United St ates District Judge f or the Centra l District of * I llinois , sitti ngby

desig nation. NOT RE COM MEN DED FO R F ULL -TEX T P UBL ICA TION

F ile N am e: 08a 0303 n. 06 F ile d: M ay 2 9, 200 8 N o. 06- 2236 UN ITED STA TES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E S IX TH C IR C U IT TROY OGLE, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant
v. RICK HO CKE R, De fendant-Appellee ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UN IT ED ST ATE S D IS TR ICT COU RT FO R T HE EA ST ER N DIST RICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION

Before : COL E and COO K, Circuit Judges; and MILL S, District Judge. *

MIL LS , D istrict Judg e. T ro y O gle br ough t de fam at ion an d int en tio na l i nf lic tio n of e m oti ona l di str es s cl ai m s a ga ins t R ic k H oc ke r ba se d on sta te m en ts he m ad e con ce rn ing O gle ’ s be ha vio r dur ing atr ip a

br oa d. T he tr ia l c ourt gr an te d H oc ke r’ s m oti on f or s umm ar

y j udgm en t and O gle ap pe al ed
.2

W e re ve rs e an d r em an d f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs. I. BACKG ROUND A. Fact ual History Plaintiff T roy

Ogle ( “ Ogle”) is a form er international evangelis t and ordained bis hop w ho m ini ste re d inthe Chur ch of God ( “ CO G ”) f or ove r tw o de ca de s. De fendant Rick Hocker

(“ Hocker ”), also a COG bisho p, works as a senior pastor at Virg in ia Beac h C OG. In 1999 , Ho ck er at tended a pray er c onference in Virginia wher e he fir st m et Ogl e. Bo th m en m etag ai n a t ca m p m eet in gs in th e su m

m er o f 19 99 an d 2 00 0. At the se tw o e ve nts , H oc ke r w orke d a s th e se rv ic e co or din at or a nd c ha irm anof

the
m usi c co m m itt ee w hil e O gle appe ar ed a s a guest

spe ak er . O gle ’ s pr ea ch ing im pr es se d H oc ke r an d, f

oll ow ing the la st o f the se m ee tin gs, he ac ce pte d an in vit at ion t o a c c o mp a n y O g l e o n at e n d a y mi n i s t r y t r i p t o B e l g i u m. O n June 27, 200 1, H oc ke r an d O gle f le wto Be lgi um . T he bis hops spe nt m ost of the fl igh t t al kin g. A t f

ir st the c onve rs at ionw as “ pr ay er fu l” tow ar ds B el giu m , but the topic soo n turned to in tim acy with G od an d from

there to “ intim acy

betwee n brothers, as w ell, between peop le.” Ogle m ade s everal statem ents that Hocker late r t h o u g h t“s t r a n g e , ” b u th e d i dn o tt e l l O g l e t h a tt h e c o n v e r s a t i o n o f f e n d e dh i m. Once in Belgium , O gle and Hocker we nt to their hotel room
. Ogle approachedOgle does not claim that this letter wa s defam atory
. 1 3 H oc ke r an d, statin g “ Inthe lov e of Ch ri st m y br oth er , ” he kis se d H oc ke r on the li ps. T he kis s w as w ithac los ed m outh and d id n ot l as t l ong. Hoc ke r al so cla im s, tho ugh O gle de nie s th is, that O gle appe ar ed nud e in the ba thr oom door w ay w ithapart ia lly
er ec t pe nis
. A ft er the se ev en ts, O gle inv ite d Hoc ke r to j oinhim f or apr ay er on the fl oo r o f t h e i r r o o m . D u r i n g t h i s p r a y e r , O g l e e n g a g e di n s o m e s o rto f c o n t a c tw i th H oc ke r. H oc ke r de sc ri be s the co nta ct a s a tte m pti ng t o pu ll him

int o ase xua l po sit ion , wher eas O gle claim s that he wa s sym bolically hold ing H ocker in his arm s. Sever al ho ur s l a t e r , H oc ke r i nf

or m e d O gl e t hat he w a s r e tur ni ng ho m e . H oc ke r re assured Ogle that his decision to return w as n ot a result of h is actions. The next day , H ocker fl ewba ck to the U nit ed

S ta te s. On Au gu st 1, 2 00 1, Ho ck er wro te a le tt er t o h is pre si di ng bi sh op in th e COG
co nc er nin g O gle ’ s be ha vio r. H oc ke r as ke d tha t his al le ga tio ns be ke pt c onf ide nti al
. 1 In spite of this re quest, Hocker , though no t m entioni ng Ogle by nam e, incorporated the inc ide nt i nto his A ugus t 5, 200 1 se rm ons. A t the 8:3 0 a
. m . se rv ic e, H oc ke r sta te d: And as I get on the plane, he begins to talkto m e and I begin to realize tha t hi s do ctri ne is co rr

upt . . . . And whe n I ge t the re [ Be lgi um ] , he be gin s to m an if

es t i ssu es of

hom ose xua lity . H e w an ts m e to b e his re al ly goo d sp ir itu al f

ri en d, quo te unquot e. . . . I se e howe as ily the church can be trick ed
. . . . Nowy ou list en to this - - we m ust protect our se lve s a s th e chur chof the li vin g G od. W e m ust prote ct

f ro m heresies and false doctrines and fa lse prophets who would lead the very4

e l e c ta w a y. Re tur nin g to thi s th em e in h is 1 1:0 0 a
. m . se rv ic e, H oc ke r re pe at ed : A nd I be ga n to pe rc ei ve that hi s do ctri ne w as c or ru pt. . . . [ H ] e al so w an te d m e to b ec om e his ve ry goo d fr ie nd .
. . . A nd I ’ m w ai tin g onhim to c om e ba ck

nowf ro m Be lgi um to fa ce m e, be ca

use I plan to f

ac e him in a co un se l o f or da in ed bi sh op s and de cl are th e m an to be a he ret ic
. . .

. Be ca use the e ne m

y tr ie d to take pr ophe sy

a nd the w or d of

G od and m es m er iz e m e an d take m e out . Fi na lly , a t the 6:0 0 p.m
. se rv ic e, H oc ke r de cl ar ed : “ G od set m e up. P ut m e on a p l a n e s e tm e n e x tt o af a l s e p r o p h e t . . . . I w a n t[ s i c ] g o i n t o a l l o f i t , b u tm a n , I ’ ll tell y ou, if ever

I w as in the wilderness lookin g at the de v i l fa ce t o face I w as.” In ad dit ionto m ak ing the se sta te m en ts d ur ing his se rm ons, H oc ke r re pe at ed m an y of the al le gatio ns ag ai nst O gle to a num be r of ind ivi dua ls o n a t l ea st s ev en te enoc ca sio ns. Si nc e H oc ke r’ s ini tia l le tte r co nst itu te d a fo rm al ch ar ge in the CO G , a
co mm i t t e e w a s c o n v e n e d
. A n i n v e s t i g a t i o n e n s u e d , e v e n tu a l l y r e s u l t i n g in t he
sus pe nsi on o f O gle ’ s C O G lic en se f or “ unbe co m ing m ini ste ri al c ondu ct . ” A lth ough the Mi ch igan C O G S ta te Co unc il late r appr ove d O gle ’ s r ei nst at em en t, the In te rn at ion al E xe cu tiv e Co unc il ha lte d th e re ins ta te m en t pr oc es s. B. Pr ocedur al History Ogle f irst brough t an action against the COG and several individu als aff iliated wi t h i t , i n cl u d i n g Ho ck er . In t h at s u i t , Og l e a t t ac k ed v ar i o u s as p ec t s o f t h e C OG’s5

ad m inistr at ive pr oc es s and the a ct ion s of CO G a ff

ili at es dur ing that pr oc es s. A lth ough O gle br ough t anint en tio na l i nf lic tio n of e m oti ona l di str es s c la im a ga ins t H oc ke r, he r ef

ra ine d f ro m pur sui ng a

de fam at io n act ion
. N o m en tio n w as m ad e of H oc ke r’ s se rm on s ta te m en ts o r his c om m en ts t o othe rs ou ts ide the c hur ch
. T he dis tr ic t co u rtf

o u n dt h a ti tl a c k e dj u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c a s e b e c au s e o f

t h e F i r st Am en dm en t’s ec cl es ia st ica l a bst en ti on do ct rin e, O

gle v . Ch urc h of

G od , N o. 1:0 3- cv 20 3 (E.D. Ten n. Se pt . 9, 2 00 4) , and th e ap pe ll at e co ur t af fir m ed , O gle v. Ch urc h of G od , 153 Fed. Appx. 371 (6th Cir. 2005 ). Whil e the ac tio n aga ins t the CO G w as pr oc ee din g, O gle fi le d th e curr en t su it ag ai nst H oc ke r ba se d onthe or ie s of de fam at iona nd inte nti ona l i nf lic tio n of
em oti ona l di str es s ( “ II E D ”) a ri si ng out of H oc ke r’ s st at em en ts t o hi s c ongr eg at ion and others. Re fusing to apply the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the district court
ne ve rt hele ss gra nt edHock er’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n the de fa m at ion c la im af te r de te rm ini ng that the state m en ts w er e opi nio ns p ro te ct ed und er the F ir st Am en dm en t. Ogle v. Hock er , 2005 W L 1349 111 (E
. D
. Mi ch
. Marc h 11 , 200 5)
. O gle ap pe al ed th e gr an t of summ ary jud gm en t, bu t we di sm is se d th e a p p eal , sua sp onte,
on juri sd ic ti on al gro un ds be cau se th e tr ia l co ur t h a d n o t rul edon th e IIED cl ai m . Ogle v. Hock

er , 179 Fed. Appx. 314, 314-15 (6th Cir. 2006 ). On re m and, H ocker filed a new m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent. H oldin g that6

the I IE D c la im

w as m er el y

de ri va tiv e of

the de fam at ionc la im , the t ria l co urt a ga in gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t. Ogl e v. Hoc ker , N o. 02- 7320 0 (E
. D
. Mich . Aug . 25, 2006 ). O gle now ap pe al s the gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t onboth th e de fam at iona nd II E D c la im s. II. ST AN DA RD OF RE VIEW W e rev ie w de novo gr an ts o f sum m ar y j udgm en t unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Ci vil Pro ced ur e 5 6, La ute rm ilc h v. F ind layCi tySc h. , 314 F. 3d 27 1, 274 (6th Cir. 2003)), and analy ze sum

m ary j udgm ent rulings using the standards em ploy ed by the district
co ur t, Q ual ic are -W

als h, I nc . v . W ard , 947 F. 2d 823, 825 (6th Cir. 1991 ). Ther efore, the e vi de nc e an d a ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s f ro m it a re c onstru ed

in the li ght

m ost fav or ab le to Ogl e. Doe v . M ichigan De

p’t. of State Police , 490 F
. 3d 4 91, 497 ( 6th Ci r. 200 7) ( ci tin g M

ats ushi ta E le c. In dus. Co

. , Lt d. v. Ze nit

h R adi o C

orp. , 475 U. S. 574, 587 ( 1986 ))
. S um

m ar y j udgm en t i s prop er ly

gr an te d whe n “ the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, a nsw er s to int er ro ga tories , a nd a dm iss ion s onf ile , tog ethe r w iththe affidavits, if any , sho w that there is no genuin e is sue as t o any m aterial f

act and that the m ovin g party

is entitled to a j udgm ent as a m atter of law. ” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c)
.

III . A N A LY SI S A . C hu rc h A ut on om y D oc tr in e / E cc le sia st ic al A bs te nt ion Before venturing in to the m erits, we m ust d et er m ine whether secular courtAl tho ug h n ot r a ise d h e re , H oc ke r p re vio us ly argue d f or the a pp lic atio n o f r e s ju dic ata 2 ba se d o n O g le ’s pr ior

su it a g a ins t th e CO G. Whil e the Court may ra ise re s ju dic ata

iss ue s sua sp on te , see H

utcherson v. LauderdaleCounty, Tenn. , 326 F.3d 747, 757 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (citing Ar izo na v . Ca lif

or nia , 5 30 U. S. 3 92 , 4 12 , 1 20 S. Ct . 2 30 4, 14 7 L . E d. 2d 37 4 ( 20 00 )) , w e no te that a pp lic atio n o f t

he do c tr ine in t

his c a se wo uld

be ina pp ro pr iate sin c e Og le ’s a lle g e dly defa matory statements (made outside of the administrative pr ocee dings) constitute separ ate a nd distinct inj uries , see Blac k v. R yder/P.I .E. Nationw ide, Inc

. , 15 F.3d 573, 582 ( 6th Cir. 1994) (re fusingto apply

res judicata wher e “[t]he two claims were not simpl y two separ ate grounds for rec overy , but instead stemmed from e ntirely separ ate a

nd discrete events a

nd wrong ful ac ts by the [defenda

nt] .”). 7 re vie wof O gle ’ s c la im s c om

plies wit h the dic ta te s of the F ir st A m en dm en t. T he 2 First A m endm ent provides th at “ Congress shall m ake no law r especting an
es ta bli shm en t of

r el igi on, or

pr ohi bit ing the f

re e ex erci se the re of

. ” U
. S. Co nst . am en d I. Thi s cl au se ap pl ie s t o t he jud ic ia ry as we ll as t he leg is la tu re, Kr es hik v . St. Ni ch ola s C

ath ed ral , 363 U
. S. 190 , 191 , 80 S. Ct
. 1037 , 4 L
. E d. 2d 1 140 (1 960) , a nd lim its the pow er

of the c ourts to he ar sui ts “ w he ne ve r the que sti ons of dis ci pli ne , or of fa i t h , o r ec clesiastical rule, custom , or law have been decided by
. . . church j udicatories . .
. .” W

at so n v. Jones , 80 U
. S. ( 13 W al l. ) 679, 727 , 20 L
. E d. 666 (1 871) ; se e als o Se rbi an E. Orth odoxD ioc es e for U
. S. of A m . and

Ca n. , 426 U. S. 696, 96 S
. Ct
. 23 72, 49 L
. E d. 2d 1 51 ( 1976 ). C ourts h av e va ri ousl y te rm ed thi s
re str ai nt a s th e chur chauto nom y doc tr ine or

e cc le sia sti ca l a

bst en tio n. Hocker point s to a p ar t i cular branch of the c hurch autono m y doctrine that pr ohi bit s c ourts f

ro m re vie w ing the de ci sio ns of ane cc le sia sti ca l bo dy r el at ing to the
em pl oym en t o f a m in is te r. Se e, e . g. , L ew is v
. Se ve nth D ayA dv en tis ts L ak e R eg ionTo the extent Og le see ks damag es base d on the COG’s de cision to suspend him or the 3 loss of his reputation within the COG, Og le’s cla ims mi g ht be bar red by this rule. An inquiry into these damag es mig ht require consideration of whether the def amation ca

used the COG’ s employ ment actions, there by

inviting an e x ploration of the c hurch’ s motives. A secular court cannot take this step. I t should be noted that this is nota cle rg y malprac tice cla im, but rather a n intentional tort 4 suit. Mostcourts have ag ree d that cler g y malprac tice cla ims, whether labe led as such or as neg lige nce suits, ar e improper , beca use they would forc e the c ourts to fashion a r elig iously based standard of

car e for churc h officia ls. See, e .g., Sanders v. Casa View Baptist Church , 134 F.3d 331, 336-37 (5th Cir. 1998). The se conc erns disappe ar, how ever , wher e a pa stor or other relig ious figur e is offe ringsecula r ser vices, since secula

r standar ds can be applied. Id. at 337. Although this ca se involves alleg ations of intentional torts, the same unde rlying c oncer n (i.e., avo idi ngint e rf

e re nc e wi th e c c le sia sti c a l a ff a ir s) a pp lie s in bo th c on te xts.

8 Conference , 978 F. 2d 940, 942 (6 th Ci r. 1992 ). I nde ed , O gle ’ s f ir st s uit a ga ins t the COGfloundered on thi s very rule. In this case, however, Hocker ’ s statem ents wer e unrelated to any

pending em

ploy m ent decision, and thus these cases ar e inapposit e. 3 Hocker also invo kes broader aspects of the ch u rc h autonomy doctrine. I n pa rt ic ular, he a rg ue s th at

se cu lar co urt r ev ie w of

O gle ’ s c la im s w oul d im

pe rm iss ibl y im ping e upon in t e rnal ecc lesiastical m atters since the ca se involv es a dispute between CO G m ini ste rs r eg ar din g ase rm on . W he th er a se cu lar co urt m ay he ar ator t su it de spi te the chur ch au ton om y doc tr ine tur

ns on the av ai la

bil ity of se cu lar st an da rd s
an d th e ab ili ty

of ac ourt t o r es olv e the c ontro ve rs y w ithou t refer en ce to re lig iou s do c trine. See E lvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church , 375 F. 3d 95 1 (9th Cir. 2004);

4 Sanders v. Casa View Baptist Church , 134 F. 3d 33 1, 336-38 (5th Cir. 1998 ). In9

E lv ig , f or e xa m ple , a n or da ine d m ini ste r w as a llo w ed to pur sue he r se xua l hara ssm en t
an d ho st il e wor k env iro nm en t clai m s ag ai ns t h er ch ur ch
. E lv ig , 375 F
. 3d a t 95 9. T he
co urt, w hil e re

j ec tin g any

c hur chli ab ili ty

f or e m plo ym en t a ct ion s, he ld that the plaintiff’ s claim s could be resolved by a “ purely secular inq uiry .” Id

. E ve n so , the
co urt w ar ne d th at if the c hur chc la im ed

that the se xua l hara ss m en t w as doc tr ina l, juri sd ic ti on wou ld be for ecl os edby the Fir st Am en dm en t. Id

. H ow ev er , sin ce the church in that case h ad not claim ed doctrinal status for th e alleged actions, th e court al lo wedth e cas e to pro ceed
. Id

. L ik e th e inqu ir

y int o ahos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t i n E lv ig , the law s of defam at io n and i nte nti ona l i nf lic tio n of

e m oti ona l di str es s ( w he n ba se d on de fam at io n) can be ap pl ie d b as ed s o l e l y o n s ecu la r ru le s. Se e D ausc h v

. R yk se , 52 F. 3d 1425 , 1433 (7 th C ir
. 199 4) (“ T ort cla im s for be ha vio r by a cl er ic tha t do[] not
re qui re the e xa m ina tio n of r el igi ous doc tr ine a re c ogni za ble
. ”). T hus, the r el ev an t questio n before us is whether the co u rt would interfer e w ith any m atters of c hurch doctrine or practice by

ruling on this case. Hocker ’ s claim

for pr o tection und er the c hurch autono m y doctrine derives
m ai nly f ro m c ont ex t: the dis put e w as be tw ee n tw o C O G bis hops a nd the a lle ge dly de fam at or

y state m en ts o cc ur

re d, in pa rt , dur ing se rm ons. Whil e w e ar e sol ic ito us o f pr ote ct ing r el igi ous se rv ic es f ro m int er fe re nc e, w e do n ot b el ie ve it pr ope r to s im

ply10

la be l a se rm on as “ ec cl es ia sti ca l” a nd b ar sui t. R athe r, w e as k w he the r the sui t w ill req ui re u s to de lv e in to pr ot ect ed m at te rs of ch ur ch do ct rin e, po li cy , and pra ct ic e. See Sc ott s A fri ca n U nio n M et hodi st P rot es tan t Ch urc h v. Co nfe re nc e of A fri ca n U nio n First Colored Methodist Protestan t Church , 98 F
. 3d 78 , 95 (3 d C ir
. 199 6) ( “ [T ] he
ex te nt t o w hic h ac ourt m ay pe rm iss ibl y

inquir e int o [e cc le sia sti ca l] dis put es . . . tur ns on the specific elem ents of the inqu iry itself and the degree to which it m ight trench upondoc tr ina lly

se nsi tiv e m atte rs , r athe r than on co nc lu sor y la be lin g of the w hol e dispu te as either ‘ secular’ or ‘ ecclesiastical. ’ ”). L ooki ng t o th e spe ci fi cs of this su it, w e ar e not c onvi nc ed

that the c ourt w ill be force d to inq uire in to doctrinal issues. First, althoug h Hocker’ s statem ents wer e pa rt of ase rm on, he a lso r ep eated the a lle ga tio ns, a lon g w ithoth er s, on num er ous
oc ca sio ns a ft er

the se rm on, thu s takin g th e bul k of his c om m en ts out sid e of the
re lig iou s pr ac tic e co nte xt. Furthe r, as the dis tr ic t co urt not ed , the se rm on s ta te m en ts the m se lve s w er e not

r el at ed to em plo ym en t or

pol ity issue s, but

w er e giv ena s a personal life exam

ple of d eception. Second, neither party has poin ted to any doctrinal iss ue s th at w ill be inv olv ed
. W e ar e not as ke d to de te rm ine w he the r O gle ’ s a ct ion s
co m pli ed w ithc hur chlaw , w he the r H oc ke r’ s r el igi ous co nde m na tio n of O gle
co m ports w iththe r el igi ous te na nts of th e COG, or

w he the r H oc ke r’ s st at em en ts supp orte d hi s doc tr ina l poi nt. N or co uld H oc ke r’ s st at em en ts b e co nstru ed to inv olv e11

p as t o r- p ar i s h i o n erd i s ci p l i n e, s i n ce Og l e d i dn o tb el o n g t o o r a t t en dHo ck er ’s Virg in ia Bea ch ch ur ch
. See Paul v. W atchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N. Y., I nc. , 819 F. 2d 8 75, 878 ( 9th Ci r. 1987 ) (r ef usi ng to appl y doc tr ine of e cc le sia sti ca l a

bst en tio n to “ shun ning ” rule c hallenge because plaintiff did not challenge the rules as contrary to c hur chlawor

se ek r el ie f fo r w ro ngf

ul “ shun nin g, ” b ut in ste ad sou ght “ re lie f fo r the harm s suffere d as a re sult of cond uct engaged in bythe Jehovah’s W itnesses that i s p r e s u mab l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e g o v e rn i n g l a w o f t h e C h u r c h ” )
. M o s ti mp o rt a n t l y, how ev er , H oc ke r doe s no t c laim th at defam at ionis a pr ac tic e of his c hur chor

is oth er w ise r oot ed

in re lig iou s be lie f. W er e he to do s o, ou r powe r to a dj udi cate his cl ai m s wo ul d b e d ou bt fu l. Se e Sa nde rs , 134 F
. 3d a t 33 7- 38. T he onl y iss ue is
w he the r H oc ke r’ s purp orte d f ac tua l st at em en ts, m ad e both duri ng a se rm on and i n
m ult ipl e other cont ex ts, w er e fa lse hood s th at harm ed O gle
. T hus, de spi te our
co m punc tio n a

bout re vie w ing state m en ts m ad e by apa sto r, som e of

w hic h w er e fr om the pulp it, w e believe that civil co u rt j urisdictio n is justified in these lim ited ci rc um stanc es be ca

use the di sp uted i ssu es c an be r es olv ed

thr oughappl ic at ionof secular standards without any im ping em ent upon church doctrine or practice
. B. St at e La w C lai m - D ef am at ion H av ing de te rm ine d th at

the F ir st A m en dm ent ’ s r e l i g i o nc l a u s e d o e s no t pr ev en t ad j udi catio n of

thi s c as e, w e tur

n to O gle ’ s c la im s of def

am at ion an d II E D
. Re ly ing12

on the F i r st

A m e ndm e nt ’ s f

r e e s pe e c h c l aus e , H oc ke r c on t e nd s t hats umm ary j udgm ent was proper ly

granted because (1) his s t at ements we re not provably false, (2) O gle wa s re q u ired to show actual m alice, and (3) O gle failed to show that H oc ke r’ s st at em en ts w er e fa lse
. W e ad dr es s th es e co nte nti ons in t ur n. 1. Capable of Carr ying a Defam atory Meaning The S uprem e Court has refused to construe the First Am endm ent to provid e an opi nio n e xc ep tio n to de fam at ionlaw , r easonin g th at suf fi ci en t pr ote ct iona lr ea dy
ex ist s f or “ sta te m en ts tha t c an not

‘ re as ona bly [ be ] int er pr et ed as sta tin g ac tua l f

ac ts’
abo ut a n i nd i vi du a l.” J

o l li ff v. N.L.R.B. , 513 F
. 3d 6 00, 610 ( 6thCi r. 200 8) ( ci tin g M ilk ov ic h v

. L orai n J

ourn al C o. , 497 U
. S. 1, 20, 110 S. Ct . 2 69 5, 111 L
. E d. 2d 1 (1990)). N evertheless, “ ‘ a statem ent of opinio n relating to m atters of public concern
w hic h do es not co nt ain apr ova bly f al se f ac tua l c onno ta tio n w ill r ec ei ve f ull constitu tional protection
. . . .’ ” Id

. ( quot ing M i lk ov ic h, 497 U.S . at 20). I n other
w or ds, state m en ts o f pur e opi nio n, hy pe rb ole , or rh et or ic al ex ag ge ratio n w ill r ec ei ve First A m endm ent protection, but statem ents deem ed capable of c ar r y i ng a d efam atory
m ean in g wi ll no t. Id

. Whether a statem ent is cap ab l e of car ry ing a defam atory
m ean in g i s a q ue st io n fo r th e co ur t. H arr is v
. B ornh ors t , 513 F. 3d 503, 522 (6th Cir. 2008 ) (quot ing F

all s v . Spo rti ng N

ew s P ubl ’g Co

. , 8 3 4 F. 2 d 6 1 1, 615-16 (6th Cir. 1987 ))
. T he c our

t doe s not de ci de w he the r a sta te m en t w as ac tua lly de fam at or y , butOg le makes two a ssertions relating to the a pplicability

of Milkovic h . First, he c laims that 5 thi s c a se inv olv e s a

pr ivate fi g ur e and

a matte r o f p ri vate c on c e rn and that Milkovic h does not apply in such contexts. But seeRestatement (Sec ond) of Tor ts § 566 cmt. c, at 173 (1977) (“A lthough it is . . . possible that [ the Supreme Court will treat] private c ommunications on (continued...) 13 onl y w he the r a re as ona

ble f ac t- fi nde r co uld

int er pr et it a s c ont ai nin g f

al se a sse rt ion s of fact
. See M

asso n v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc. , 501 U. S. 496, 516 (199 1). W hile t he S up r e m e C ourtp r ov i de d e xam pl e s of h owt o de t e rm i ne w hether pr ote ct ed opi nio n is at issue , it did not se t ou t an e xpl ic it te st. I n Jo lli ff , w e canvassed the te sts a n dap p r o a c h e s o f o t h e r c i r c u i t s a n dc r e a t e daf

r a m e w o rkf

o r a s c e rt a i n i ng whether a defam atory

m eaning can be gleaned from the al l egedly

defam atory st at em en t. J

oll iff , 5 13 F
. 3d a t 61 0- 612. U nde r thi s a ppr oa ch , the c ourt pars es the langua ge of

the state m en t un de r a m

ult i- fa ct or

te st: (1 ) T he c om

m on u sa ge or

m eanin g o f the a lle ge dly de fam at or

y w or ds them selves, w hether they are com

m onlyunde rs t o o d to be loo se, fi gur at ive , or

hy pe rb oli c w or ds; (2 ) T h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e s t a t e m e n t s a r e v e r i f i ab l e , w h e t h e r the statem ent is objectively

capable of proof or disproo f; (3 ) T he im

m ed ia te c ont ex t i n w hic h th e sta te m en t oc curs ; and (4 ) T he br oa de r soc ia l c ont ex t i nto w hic h th e sta te m en t f its
. Id

. a t 61 1- 12. Ap p l yin g t h es e f

ac t o rs t o t h e c a s e b ef

o re u s , we co n cl u d e t h at Ho ck er ’s statem ents wer e not protected. First, while m any of O gle’ s serm on statem ents wer e 5(...continued) 5 pr ivate matte rs . . . d if

fe re ntl y , th e log ic of

the c on sti tut ion a l pr inc ipl e wo uld a pp e ar t o a pp ly to all expressions of [pure] opi nion. . . .”). Sec ond, he ar g ues that in the private figure/matter of private c oncer

n context, Mi chig an law r equire s the defe ndant to show that a stateme nt is “not pr ov a bly fa lse .” Sin c e we c on c lud e that Milkovic h provides no prote ction (and be cause neither pa rt y br ie fe d th e iss ue of

wh e the r a

matte r o f p ub lic c on c e rn is at is su e ), we de c lin e to a dd re ss the se a dd iti on a l po int s. Some statements, like Hocke r’s de clar ation that Og le was a “fa lse prophet” cannot be 6 ve ri fi e d. Ne ve rt

he le ss, the un de rl yingfa c tua l a sse rt ion that O g le atte mpt e d to e ng a g e in homosex ual beha

vior ca n be. 14 ei the r fi gur at ive or hy

pe rb oli c (f

or ex am ple , the cl ai m tha t Ogl e was a “ fa lse pr ophe t” ), the c om

m on m eanin g of

oth er phr as es sug ge sts , a s ali te ra l f ac t, that O gle
w ish ed to enga ge in hom ose xua l be ha vio r (f or e xa m ple , “ [h ] e al so w an te d m e to be co m e h is ve ry

go od fri en d
. . . .”). See U nelko Corp. v. Rooney , 912 F
. 2d 1 049, 1053 -5 4 ( 9thCi r. 199 0) ( fi ndi ng d ef am at or y f ac tua l a sse ssm en t i n a TV se gm en t otherwise w as filled w ith hy perbole and hum or). Se cond, m any of the statem ents are
ve ri fi ab le
. Whil e tha t ve ri fi catio n m ay de pe nd on w hose sto ry

ali ste ne r be lie ve s,
m ost of the a sse rt ion s ar e tie d to unde rl y ing f ac tua l a sse rt ion s. F or

e xa m ple , aphr as e like “ m anifested issues of hom osexuality ,” which cannot easily be reduced to a clear
m eanin g, ne ve rthe le ss c ar ri es im pli ci t f ac tua l a sse rt ion s ( i. e. , that O gle w ish ed to
en ga ge in hom ose xua l behavio r)
. L ike the a lle ga tio ns o f pe rj ur y in Milkovich , the se 6
as se rti on s m ay be di sp ut ed , bu t t he y are v eri fia bl e. See M

ilkovich , 497 U
. S. a t 21 -2 2, 110 S. Ct
. 269 5, 111 L
. E d. 2d 1. T hir d, the co nte xt of the sta te m en t c uts both w ay s. H o c k e r ’s s e rmo n w a s i n t e n d e d t o e x c i t e a n d o u t r a g e h i s c o n g r e g a t i o n . T h u s , s o me15

of hi s s ta te m en ts m ig ht be co ns id ered as rhe to ric al flo ur is he s. Se e Jo lli ff , 513 F
. 3d at 613 ( dis tin gui shi ng lette r to m an ag em en t f ro m “ le af le ts, pa m phl et s, or or ga niz ing slo ga ns m eant t o e xc ite w orke rs or ral ly the ir sup port . . . ”)
. O n th e oth er hand, Hocker also passed his declara tions on to others in a n um ber o f con versations, which sugg es ts h e int en de d his sta te m en ts to be ac ce pte d as lite ra lly tr ue . I n bo th c ont ex ts, how ev er , H oc ke r’ s st at em en ts i nvi te d hi s audi en ce to be lie ve that O gle m ad e hom osexual advances. As such, this fa ctor sugg ests an underly ing d efam atory
m eanin g. T he f

ourth f ac tor , the br oa de r soc ia l co nte xt, m ir ro rs the thi rd fa ct or . T he
se rm on s ta te m en ts w er e m or e lik el y to be r he tor ic al a nd e xa ggerat ed, w he re as the
one -o n- one state m en ts w oul d li kely co nv ey the m es sa ge that H oc ke r’ s ve rs ionof
ev en ts was l it eral ly true
. S e e id (dist ing uis hin g be tw ee n pr iva te c om m uni catio ns,
w hich ar e m or e lik el y

to be take n a s li te ra lly

tr ue , f ro m pub lic c om

m uni catio ns, which are m ore lik ely to be rhetorical). W eighing these fac tors togeth er, we find that
a re as onable trier of f

act could attribute a defam atory m eaning to Hocke r’s statem ents. Theref

ore, the district court erre d in granting su m m ary j udgm ent based
on Milkovich
.

2. Ac tual Malice W e ne xt t

ur n to H oc ke r’ s a lte rn at ive a rg um en t tha t O gle ’ s cla im m ust f ai l be ca use he ha s f

ai le d to de m onstrate ac tua l m al ic e. Whe the r ac tua l m al ic e m ust beHocke r also cla ims that various qualified privileg es protec t his statements. The 7 privileg es he r elies on, howe ver, r equire him to show a duty to disclose and disclosure to proper parties only
. See, e .g., Bufalino v. Maxon Bros., Inc

. , 368 Mich. 140, 153, 117 N.W.2d 150 (1962) ( descr ibing e lements of duty privileg e as “ g ood faith, an inter est to be upheld, a statement lim ite d in its sc op e to t

his purp os e , a

pr op e r o c c a sio n, and

pu bli c atio n in

a pr op e r m ann e r a

nd to proper parties only”). Eve n assuming H ocker ’s congreg ation may have be en a pr oper r ece iving party , the re cord is uncle ar a bout whether

Hocke r also disclosed the inf ormation to persons outside the churc h. As such, summary judgme nt would be improper on this g round. 16 pr ove n, how ev er , tur

ns o n w he the r O gle is a publi c or pr iva te f igure , ac la ssi fi catio n that the parties vigorou sly dispu te. See Gertz v. Robert W elch, Inc. , 418 U
. S. 323 , 7 342, 94 S. C t. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974). Pu bli c fi gur es a re tho se w ho hav e “ as sum ed ro le s of e spe ci al pr om ine nc e in the affa irs of society .” Id
. at

345
. H ow ev er , “ [a ] bse nt c le ar e vid en ce of

ge ne ra l f am e or noto riety in the com

m uni t y, a n d pervasive invo lvem ent in the affair s of society , an indiv idual sho uld no t be deem ed a p ublic personality for all aspects of h is life. ” Id

. at 352
. T he e vid en ce re la tin g to w he the r O gle is a publ ic f igure is spars e, de ri vin g
m ai nly f ro m O gle ’ s own pl ea din g st at em en t tha t he is an“ int er na tio na l e va nge lis t” who has attained “ international fam e and reputation throughou t the nation, as we ll as oth er c ountri es , w ithr es pe ct

to his m ini str

y . ” ( J. A
. 10 .) Hoc ke r ar gue s th es e sta te m en ts e sta

bli sh O gle a s a“ se lf

-p ro cl ai m ed

pub lic fi gur e, ” but

thi s po sit ionm

ust be r ej ec te d. E ve n assu m ing tha t proc la im ing one se lf apub lic f igure w er e suf

fi ci en t, O gle ’ s st at em en ts a dm it fam e onl y “ w ithr es pe ct to his m ini str

y . ” T he re fo re , he c oul dIndeed, O g le ca n hardly be said to possess per

vasive fa me when H ocker , himself a 8 b i s h o p i n th e C OG ch urc h , h adn o th ea rdo f h i mp ri o r t o th ei r f i rs tm ee t i n g. 17 not ha ve c onc ed ed

that he w as apub lic f

igure f or a ll pur pose s. 8 A lth ough Ogle h as not

a tta ine d th e sta tus of

pub lic f igure , H oc ke r co nte nds tha t he is at le as t a lim ite d purp ose publ ic fi gur e. Pr iva te pe rs ons can be co m e publ ic figures by “ ‘ thrust[ing ] them selves to the foref ront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues inv olved.’ ” W olsto n v. Re ader’s Di g es t Ass’n. , I

nc. , 4 4 3 U
. S
. 1 5 7 , 1 6 4 , 9 9 S
. C t . 2 7 0 1 , 6 1 L
. E d
. 2 d 4 5 0 ( 1979 ) (quot ing G er tz , 418 U
. S. a t 34 5, 94 S
. Ct
. 299 7, 41 L
. E d. 2d 7 89)
. Me re a sso ci at ion or i nvol vem ent in a con troversy is not necessarily enough ; instead the court analy zes the “ ‘ na tur e an d e xte nt of a n in div idu al ’ s part ic ipa tio n inthe part ic ular co ntr ove rs y givin g rise to the def

am ation.’ ” Id

. a t 16 7 ( quot ing G er tz , 418 U
. S. a t 34 5, 94 S
. Ct
. 2997 , 41 L . E d. 2d 789). Under these standards, Ogle fails to qualify as a lim ited-purpos e public figure. H oc ke r’ s a lle ge dly

de fam at or

y state m en ts c onc er

ne d O gle ’ s a ct ion s inahot el r oom in B el giu m . E ve n if

tr ue , the se a ct ion s pla inl y did not thr ust O gle to the f

or ef ro nt o f any publi c controversy . Nor is that conclusion disturbed by the publ ic stir that later
su rro un de d Ho ck er’s acc us at io ns . Se e H utc hin son v. P rox m ire , 443 U .S
. 111 (197 9). T he re fo re , sin ce nothin g sh ow s th at O gle thr ust him se lf in to the vorte x of apub lic18

issue, O gle will be tre ated as a private figure plaintiff. A s such, actual m alice need not be pr ove d, a nd H oc ke r’ s a lte rn at ive gr ound s for af fi rm ing the tr ia l c ourt m

ust f ai l. 3. P ro of

of “F als it y” Finally , the par

ties disp ute whether a pri m a fa ci e case for defam ation has been
es ta bli she d. U nde r Mi ch igan law , ade fam at ionc la im r equir es “ (1 ) a fal se a nd de fam at or

y state m en t c onc er

nin g th e pla int if

f, ( 2) a n unpr ivi le ge d c om m uni catio n to a th ird party , (3) fault am ount ing at l east to negligence on the part of the publ isher,
an d ( 4) e ith er

a ct ion ab ili ty of the sta te m en t i rr es pe ct ive of spe ci al harm

( de fam at ion pe r se ) or the ex ist en ce of spe ci al harm c au se d by

the pub lic at ion ” (d ef

am at ion per quod ). M ita n v . Ca m

pbe ll, 474 Mi ch
. 21, 24, 706 N
. W
. 2d 4 20 ( 2005 ) (c itatio ns
o mi t t e d )
. Th e p a rt i e s d i s p u t e wh e t h e r Og l e h a s s h o w n f

a l s i t y.

“ Whe re the a lle ge d de fam at ionc onc er ns b oth a pr iva te f

igure a nd a

m atte r of pr iva te c onc er

n, the bur de n of pro vin g that the state m en t w as not f al se r es ts w iththe defendant. How ever, wher e the statem ents are of publ ic concern, the private-figure plaintiff bears the burden of proving falsity .” J& J Constr. Co. v. Brick

layers & Allied Craft sm en , L oc al 1 , 468 Mi ch
. 722 , 7 32 n.11 , 664 N
. W
. 2d 7 28 ( 2003 ) (c itatio ns
om itt ed ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t r ea chthi s is sue . A nd al tho ugh both part ie s no te the im portanc e of the publ ic /pr iva te co nc er n, the y utt er ly fa il to dis cu ss the iss ue or ci te any sup portin g cas e la w. Gi ve n th is s er iou s f ai lin g and the im

portanc e of

the19

iss ue to the c as e, w e re m an d to the dis tr ic t cour t to perm it it to c onsi de r the que sti on in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e. See Lev insky’s, I nc. v . W al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 127 F
. 3d 1 22, 134 (1st Cir. 1997 ) (r efusing to resolv e public concern issues at the appellate level). C . St at e La w C lai m - In te nt ion al I nf lic ti on of Em ot ion al D ist re ss un de r M ic hi gan La w Fi na ll y , w e tur

n to O gle ’ s I IE D c la im
. T he tr ia l c ourt pr em ise d it s gr an t of
s u mmary j u d g me n to n t h i s c l a i m s o l e l y o n t h e i n v a l i d i t y o f O g l e ’s d e f a ma t i o n c l a i m. As discussed abo v e, this was err oneous . Thus, to the extent that the trial court determ ines that Ogle has set forth a p r i m a f a c ie de fam ationc la im , the I IE D c la im shou ld a lso be re ins ta te d. H oc ke r, how ev er , ar gue s tha t e ve n if the de fam at iona ct ion
sur viv es , the I IED c la im

sho uld sti ll be dis m iss ed

be ca use his c ondu ct

w as not

“ extrem e and outrageous.” W e disagree. Alt hough th e Mi ch igan S upr em e Co urt ha s no t r ec ogni ze d I IE D c la im s, thi s Co ur t ha s as su m edth atit wil l d o s o. Andrews v. Prudential Sec., Inc. , 160 F
. 3d 3 04, 309 (6 th C ir
. 199 8)
. The ele m en ts o f suc h ac la im c onsi st o f “ (1 ) ex tr em e an d out ra g eo u s co n du ct ; (2 ) i n t en to r r ec k l es s n es s ; (3 ) c au s at i o n ; an d (4) severe em otion al distress.” Id

. “ The th res ho ld forsh owi ng ex tre m e an d o ut rag eo us co nd uc t i s h ig h.” Van Vo rous v. Burm eister , 262 Mich. A pp. 467, 481, 687 N. W .2d 132 (2004 ). L ia bil ity a tta ch es onl y

w he re the c ondu ct

is “ so o utr ag eo us i n c ha ra ct er , a nd s o20

extrem e in degree, as to go bey ond all possibl e bound s of decency , and to b e re garded
as atrocious, and utterly intol erable in a civilized com m unity .” Id

. ( quot ing R obe rts
v. A uto -O wn er

s I ns. Co

. , 422 Mi ch
. 594 , 603 , 374 N
. W
. 2d 905 (198 5) ). “ T he te st i s
w he the r the r ec itatio n of the f ac ts t o an a ve ra ge m em

be r of the c om m uni ty w oul d
ar o u s e h i s re s en t m en tag ai n s tt h e a ct o r, an dl ea dh i m t o ex cl ai m , ‘Ou t ra g eo u s .’” G raha m v . F

ord , 23 7 Mi ch
. App. 670 , 674 -7 5, 604 N
. W
. 2d 7 13 ( 1999 ) (quot ing R obe rts , 422 Mich. at 603, 374 N.W .2d 905) (internal quotatio ns om itted). Co nstru ing al l inf

er en ce s in Ogl e’ s fa vor , a re as ona ble j ur y c oul d po te nti al ly fi nd “ ex tr em e an d outra ge ous co nduc t. ” A cc or din g to O gle ’ s ve rs ion of ev en ts, H oc ke r de lib er at el y

spr ea d f al se r um or s of O gle ’ s ho m ose xua l i nc lin at ion s on
m ult ipl e oc ca sio ns to larg e au die nc es . A j ur y co uld fi nd tha t this co nd uc t ext en ds
w el l bey ond “ m er e insu lts , ind ign iti es , thr eats, a nnoy an ce s, pe tty opp re ssi ons, [ an d] other trivialities.” Li ne baug h v

. She rat on M

ic h. Co rp. , 198 Mi ch
. App. 335, 342, 497 N
. W
. 2d 5 85 ( 1993 ) (c iti ng R obe rts , 422 Mi ch
. a t 60 3, 37 4 N. W
. 2d 9 05)
. A s su ch , w e cannot say tha t O gle ’ s cl ai m fa lls shor t as a m atte r of law. Se e id

. at 342 -4 3 (c ir cu la tio n of

c ar too n de pic tin g pl ai nti ff

in a se xua lly co m

pr om isi ng posit ionc oul d be basis for IIE D c laim ). IV. CO NC LUS ION Fo r the r ea sons state d ab ove , thi s Co urt R E V E RS E S the tr ia l c ourt’ s gr an t of21

sum m ar y j udgm en t and R E MA

N D S fo r furt

he r pr oc ee din gs.