Opinion ID: 2799434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unprofessional Conduct

Text: At multiple points during their conversation, Bartels told Carbone that he found Plaintiffs' behavior unprofessional. The term 'professional' typically does not lend itself to any single, readily ascertainable meaning, see Levinsky's v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 129 (1st Cir. 1997). For example, the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'professional' as [r]eaching a standard or having the quality expected of a professional person or his work; competent in the manner of a professional. 12 The Oxford English Dictionary 573 (2d ed. 1989). Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary adds the following aspect: exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 991 (11th ed. -12- 2003). Taken in the context of the full conversation, Defendant's statements touch on these imprecise and subjective connotations of the term 'professional.' Where an expressive phrase, though pejorative and unflattering, cannot be objectively verified, it belongs squarely in the category of protected opinion. Levinsky's, 127 F.3d at 130 (rejecting defamation claim based on description of clothing store as trashy); Phantom Touring, 953 F.2d at 728 (holding that newspaper's critique of a theater production as fake and phony could not be proven true or false, since those adjectives admit of numerous interpretations); McCabe v. Rattiner, 814 F.2d 839, 842–43 (1st Cir. 1987) (concluding that characterization of condominium sales pitch as a scam was not actionable because the term lacks a precise core meaning). Whether or not a particular person's behavior may be characterized as 'professional' or exhibiting 'professional courtesy' will often be a quintessential expression[] of personal judgment which is subjective in character, Gray, 221 F.3d at 248. The term 'professional' can also be used in a more objective sense, as characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession or occupation. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1811 (1961). Thus, in some contexts, a statement that a person has acted unprofessionally, without explanation, might imply the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts concerning a sufficiently objective -13- standard of conduct. Here, however, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant accused them of violating any technical, ethical, or commonly-understood standard. Even if some type of shared standard of professionalism for police and federal agency conduct could be identified that would have been readily understood by both Defendant and Carbone, Defendant explained the circumstances of the encounter, thus providing Carbone with the factual basis underlying his opinion of Plaintiffs' conduct. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 cmt. b (1977) (a comment on the plaintiff's conduct, qualifications or character coupled with a statement of the facts on which the speaker bases that opinion constitutes one type of pure opinion). For example, Bartels told Carbone that Quaglia apologized following the initial encounter and conceded that all in all [Plaintiffs] left in an amicable fashion. Likewise, Bartels affirmed Carbone's statement that [Plaintiffs'] story did pan out. . . . they just weren't too social about it. Thus, the full context of the conversation makes clear that Defendant fully disclosed the non-defamatory facts about the confrontation in a way that allowed Carbone to form his own impression. Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that Defendant's statements regarding his impression of Plaintiffs' professionalism were not actionable under defamation law. Cf. Wait v. Beck's N. Am., Inc., 241 F. Supp. 2d 172, 183 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (observing that [s]tatements that someone has acted unprofessionally or -14- unethically generally are constitutionally protected statements of opinion and citing cases); Naeemullah v. Citicorp Servs., Inc., 78 F. Supp. 2d 783, 793 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (classifying statements that plaintiff has poor interpersonal skills and run-of-the-mill professional abilities as nonactionable statements of subjective opinion); Froess v. Bulman, 610 F. Supp. 332, 342 (D.R.I. 1984) ([I]t is not for the Court to assess the wisdom of the defendant's opinion [that, inter alia, plaintiff was 'downright professionally rude' and did not 'show enough professional courtesy'], or to punish him for expressing it.); Pritsker v. Brudnoy, 389 Mass. 776, 781-82 (1983) (concluding that statements critical of restaurant, including that owners were unconscionably rude and vulgar people, were non-actionable opinions); see also Catalfo v. Jensen, 657 F. Supp. 463, 468 (D.N.H. 1987) (Ethical standards are inherently subjective, and what is sleazy to one person will not necessarily be so to another.).