DeIuliis v. Engel

Background

The 2017 Carbon Majors Report identified 100 fossil-fuel companies associated with most of the greenhouse-gas emissions covered by the report’s 1988–2015 period. The report listed “Consol Energy Inc.” as the 39th-ranked company and attributed 0.5% of global industrial greenhouse-gas emissions during that period to it.

Nicholas J. DeIuliis was president of that company from 2011 through the report period and became its chief executive officer in 2014. In a November 2017 spinoff, that company changed its name to CNX Resources Corporation, while the new spinoff company took the name “Consol Energy Inc.” DeIuliis remained president and chief executive officer of the former company and had never been employed by the new company.

In April 2019, Jordan Engel published an article on the Decolonial Atlas website that cited the Carbon Majors Report and included a map naming executives associated with the 100 companies. The map placed DeIuliis’s name next to “Consol Energy.” The article referred to the executives as “ecocidal planet killers” and the “top 100 people killing the planet.” Good Worldwide Inc. and Leo Shvedsky later published an article that reproduced the map and discussed the Engel article.

DeIuliis alleged that the publications defamed him, including through defamation by implication, and placed him in a false light. He argued that the map referred to New Consol, making his inclusion false because he had led the former company rather than New Consol. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the publications were substantially true, that the challenged descriptions were protected opinions, and that New York does not recognize false-light invasion of privacy.

Defamation Claims

Because the case was based on diversity jurisdiction, the court used New York’s rules for deciding which state’s law applied. For the defamation claims, DeIuliis did not identify a substantive conflict between New York and Pennsylvania law, so the court applied New York law.

Under New York law, a defamation claim requires a false written statement of fact about the plaintiff, publication to another person, fault, falsity, and either special damages or a statement defamatory on its face. The court first held that descriptions such as “ecocidal planet killers” and “the top 100 people killing the planet” were protected expressions of opinion. In context, the statements were hyperbolic and reflected the authors’ viewpoints rather than objectively verifiable facts. The articles also identified the Carbon Majors Report as the basis for those opinions.

The court separately held that DeIuliis’s inclusion next to “Consol Energy” was substantially true. The articles and map were plainly based on the Carbon Majors Report, which identified the former Consol Energy company—not New Consol—as one of the 100 companies. DeIuliis had been that company’s chief executive officer during the relevant period. The later publication date of the articles did not change their connection to the report’s 1988–2015 period.

The court rejected DeIuliis’s argument that the articles’ forward-looking language showed that the map identified the current executives of companies existing in 2019. It also rejected his argument that a September 2019 addendum, which listed James A. Brock as the Consol Energy chief executive officer, established that the original map was intended to identify New Consol. The court concluded that, even accepting DeIuliis’s interpretation of the addendum, the overall substance of the articles remained true because DeIuliis was the chief executive officer of the company identified in the report.

The court also rejected defamation by implication. It found that the publications did not reasonably imply that DeIuliis was the chief executive officer of New Consol or of a coal company generally. The court further held that the opinions suggesting that he was a polluter or environmentally unfriendly were supported by the report’s undisputed findings concerning the company he led.

False-Light Claim

Pennsylvania recognizes false-light invasion of privacy, but New York does not. Applying New York’s interest-based choice-of-law analysis, the court found that Pennsylvania had an interest because DeIuliis was domiciled and worked there and alleged that he suffered injury there. However, the publications originated from or were connected to defendants operating in New York, were published worldwide on the internet, and allegedly affected investment interest in a company traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The court therefore concluded that New York had the more significant interest in regulating the challenged publications.

Because New York does not recognize false-light invasion of privacy, the court dismissed that claim.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It dismissed the complaint in its entirety with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions, and closed the case.