Edward Henry v. Fox News Network, L.L.C.

Background

Edward Henry, a former Fox News Channel employee, sued Fox News Network LLC and Suzanne Scott over four statements about his termination. The statements said that Fox received a former employee’s complaint involving willful sexual misconduct, hired an outside law firm to investigate, and terminated Henry based on the investigation’s findings. Henry alleged that the statements were false because Fox’s investigation was a sham and because Fox and Scott terminated him to promote a narrative about reforming Fox’s workplace culture and to advance Scott’s career.

Henry also alleged that the statements created the false impression that his conduct was comparable to rape or serious sexual assault. He maintained that his relationship with the former employee who made the allegations had been consensual. His complaint asserted claims for defamation, defamation by implication, defamation per se, false light or invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with a contract or prospective economic advantage.

Defamation claims

The court applied New York law to Henry’s defamation claims. Because Henry was treated as a public figure, he also had to ultimately prove that the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for whether they were false. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, however, he needed to allege facts making falsity plausible.

The court held that Henry did not plausibly allege that any of the four statements was false. The court said the complaint did not dispute that Fox received the complaint, hired an outside law firm, suspended Henry, and terminated him within six days. Henry’s allegations that the investigation was a sham were unsupported by facts; the investigation’s short duration and Henry’s production of documents did not plausibly show that its findings were not genuine or that Fox did not rely on them.

The court also rejected Henry’s argument that the statements falsely implied he had engaged in willful sexual misconduct. It found that the phrase was vague and could encompass different types of conduct, including the consensual workplace affair that Henry admitted. The court further held that the statements did not plausibly imply that Henry had raped or sexually assaulted the former employee. The statements used general language, did not describe the specific allegations, and did not say that Fox considered those specific allegations true. Henry also failed to plead the specific economic losses required for a defamation claim based on meaning supplied by outside facts.

False light and invasion of privacy

The court dismissed Henry’s false-light and invasion-of-privacy claim. Under New York law, false-light invasion of privacy is not a separate recognized claim. The court said the claim also failed under Maryland law because Henry had not alleged facts supporting the comparable elements of a false-light claim, and he alleged no additional facts supporting invasion of privacy.

Tortious interference

The court dismissed Henry’s tortious-interference-with-contract claim because he did not identify a contract provision that Fox breached or plausibly allege that Scott was a third party to his employment contract. His allegations that Scott acted to advance her career did not support a reasonable inference that she acted solely from malice or self-interest outside her employment duties.

The court also dismissed the claim for interference with prospective economic advantage. Henry did not identify a particular existing business relationship with a third party, and he did not allege facts showing that Fox or Scott acted with malice or used dishonest, unfair, or improper means.

Disposition

Judge Abrams granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court dismissed Henry’s complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim, but granted him leave to file a second amended complaint. The court set October 20, 2022, as the filing deadline and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket 68.