1. Madeleine Shore
NO. A11-1093
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Tiffany Flowers,
Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
Peggy Mitchell,
Defendant/Respondent
BRIEF OF APPELLANT AND ADDENDUM
GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, STEPHENSON & SUTCLIFFE, P.A.
MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A. Mark G. Stephenson (#105235)
Mark Mathison (#028709X) 1635 Greenview Drive, S.W.
Dean LeDoux (#0176643) Rochester, MN 55902
500 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Phone: 507.288.7160
Minneapolis, MN 55402 Fax: 507.287.1033
Phone: 612.632.3247 markgsjd@aol.com
Fax: 612.632.4247
Mark.Mathison@gpmlaw.com ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

2. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES......................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.........................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ......................................................................................4
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...........................................................................4-5
ARGUMENT....................................................................................................................5
I. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY RULED IN FAVOR OF PEGGY
MITCHELL BECAUSE PEGGY’S STATEMENTS WERE IN FACT
LIBELOUS
A. Peggy’s statements were libelous and that fact is supported heavily by
case law and statutory law.
B. Peggy’s libelous statements were the direct cause of Tiffany losing both
her job and reputation in town; therefore, punitive damages should have
been awarded.
II. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW IN APPELLATE CASES WILL SHOW THAT
THE CASE SHOULD BE OVERTURNED BECAUSE THE LOWER COURT
DID NOT CONSIDER TIFFANY’S LOST WAGES WHEN DECIDING THE
CASE.
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................6

3. 3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 752 (2013). ................................................................................5
Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. App. Ct. 2007). .....................................5, 6,7
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252 (1980)......................................................6,7
Sauter v. Wasemiller, 389 N.W.2d 200 (1986).............................................................................8
MINNESOTA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04 ......................................................................................................8
MINNESOTA STATUTES
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 549.20...........................................................................................................6

4. 4
Statement of the Issues
I. Did the trial court err in finding Peggy Mitchell not liable for defamation and not
granting punitive damages?
II. Did the trial court err in failing to consider Tiffany Flower’s lost wages from losing her
job as a summer camp director?
Statement of the Case
Tiffany Flowers sued Peggy Mitchell for defamation after Peggy Mitchell wrote a
fictional story in which she referred to Tiffany as a slut. The statement caused Tiffany to lose her
reputation in town, caused emotional suffering, and caused Tiffany to lose her job as a summer
camp director at the local YMCA. Judge Antonson ruled in favor of Peggy Mitchell. Peggy was
found to not be liable for any damages caused to Tiffany. Appellant argues that the trial court
erred in making that ruling because Peggy met all of the elements needed in a defamation action,
and they did not consider the wages that were lost when Appellant lost her job as a summer camp
director.
Statement of the Facts
Peggy Mitchell is an aspiring writer. She took the opportunity to write for a contest in a
national magazine. She won the contest and her story was published nationally in the magazine.
Although her story is fictional, she based it off of people that she knew. In Peggy’s story, she
used Tiffany Flower’s name and referred to her as a slut. The story was read by many people in
Peggy and Tiffany’s hometown, and many people in the town considered the story to be true and
began to harass Tiffany. Tiffany began to receive harassing phone calls and comments from
residents in the town. Tiffany has suffered emotionally and she has experienced mental anguish.
As a result of the story, Tiffany has also lost her summer job as a camp director for the town’s
YMCA.
Summary of Argument
Courts have often provided both general and punitive damages to plaintiffs harmed by
defamatory statements made by defendants. The trial court in this case should have ruled in favor
of Tiffany for many reasons. First, Peggy’s actions satisfied all of the elements needed in a
defamation action. Second, the trial court should have considered applying punitive damages to
this case. Third, the trial court failed to consider Tiffany’s lost wages when the case was first
tried. The trial court made many errors when trying this case and the standard of review will
show that the decision in this case should be reversed because Peggy’s statements were
defamatory.

5. 5
Argument
I. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY RULED IN FAVOR OF PEGGY BECAUSE
PEGGY’S STATEMENTS WERE IN FACT LIBELOUS
A. Peggy’s statements were libelous and that fact is supported heavily by case law
and statutory law
The elements for a defamation action are as follows: the defamatory statement was
communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, the statement was false, the statement tends to
harm the plaintiff’s reputation and to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of the community, and
the recipient of the false statement reasonably understands it to refer to a specific individual.
McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 752 (2013). In McKee, a doctor attempted to sue the son of a
patient for posting “defamatory statements” on a rate your doctor website. The son was found not
guilty, as the statements were either true, simply opinion based, or unable to convey a
defamatory meaning.
In this case, Peggy should have been found liable, because her statements about Tiffany
were not true because there is no scientific way to prove that someone is a “slut”. Peggy’s
statements were not opinion based, because she was not discussing her actual view of Tiffany.
The word “slut” conveys a very strong defamatory meaning because it insinuates that someone
has sex with a large amount of different people. To meet the first element of a defamatory action,
Peggy communicated the statement through a national magazine. Next, the statement about
Tiffany was false. Then, the statement harmed Tiffany’s reputation in the community, people
began to dislike her and she was fired from her job as a result of her reputation being harmed. To
meet the final element, Peggy used Tiffany’s full name, making it obviously known that the
statement was in regards to her.
The case of Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. App. Ct. 2007) states that
statements are defamatory per se if they falsely accuse a person of having a repugnant disease, of
being a criminal, of being unchaste, or of poor conduct in regards to running their business or
performing their work duties. In Longbehn, the defendant accused the plaintiff of being a
pedophile because he was a much older man that was dating a young woman. The defendant did
not start the rumor of plaintiff being a pedophile, but he did repeat it throughout the town.
Although being accused of pedophilia is much more serious that being accused of being a
slut as Peggy called Tiffany, the statement about Tiffany still had a detrimental effect on
Tiffany’s reputation around town because they reflected upon her chastity. The court in
Longbehn found that although the defendant was not responsible for starting the rumor that the
plaintiff was a pedophile, he still repeated the term around town and that action made him liable
for defamation per se. Peggy’s statements about Tiffany were not defamatory per se, but they
were defamatory because they harmed Tiffany’s reputation and they accused Tiffany of being
unchaste. Following the decision in Longbehn, the court should find Peggy liable for defamation

6. 6
because she falsely stated that Tiffany was a slut, which damaged her reputation and caused her
to lose her job as a summer camp director.
B. Peggy’s libelous statements were the direct cause of Tiffany losing both her job
and her reputation in town; therefore, punitive damages should have been
awarded.
The case of Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. App. Ct. 2007) also
supports the second argument in that the court found that the statements made by the defendant
about plaintiff being a pedophile did not cause plaintiff to lose prospective employment. The
plaintiff lost his job because he assaulted his girlfriend and she took out an order for protection
against him. The plaintiff worked as a corrections officer, and these charges caused him to lose
his job.
In this case, Tiffany did not do anything that could cause her to lose her employment.
Tiffany lost her job because she lost her good reputation in town when Peggy called her a slut.
The court in Longbehn stated that if the plaintiff had not caused his own job loss, then the
defendant could have been found liable. But because of his actions, the plaintiff lost his job and
lost his ability to be employed as a corrections officer. Peggy should have been found liable for
defamation because her statements about Tiffany were the direct cause of Tiffany losing her
employment as a summer camp director at the YMCA.
Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252 (1980) is a case in which the plaintiff
resigned from his job at the defendant’s request. The defendant stated that the plaintiff could
either resign and be given a good recommendation or the plaintiff would be fired and receive no
recommendation whatsoever from the defendant. The plaintiff chose to resign, and when he
attempted to apply for a new job in his field, the defendant gave a horrible recommendation
causing the plaintiff not to be hired. Normally, this would not be considered defamation because
previous employers are allowed to tell prospective employers that the person looking to be hired
is not a good worker, but the previous employer is only allowed to give an honest
recommendation. In Stuempges, the previous employer gave false statements to the prospective
employer in regards to the work ethic of the plaintiff causing the prospective employer not to
hire the plaintiff. The court in Stuempges found that the statements made by the defendant were
in fact defamatory, and the court awarded pecuniary and compensatory damages to the plaintiff.
The court also ordered that the defendant pay punitive damages.
Tiffany lost her job because her reputation in the town was tarnished. She did not have a
former employer give her a poor recommendation for her employment at the YMCA as a
summer camp director; the only “recommendation” that caused her to lose her job was the
statement that she is a slut in a national magazine. This statement in no way tarnishes her work
ethic, but having her reputation in town tarnished was enough for her to lose her job and lose any
wages that would have come with that job. The court in Stuempges stated that the defamatory
statements made by the defendant were the cause of the plaintiff not being able to become

7. 7
gainfully employed in his field, so the court used that as a factor in deciding the amount of
damages to award to the plaintiff. The court in Tiffany’s case should have found Peggy to be
liable for defamation, and then should have considered the wages that were lost when Peggy
made the defamatory statement that caused Tiffany to lose her job.
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 549.20 states that punitive damages will be allowed only if there is
clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with deliberate disregard to the rights or
safety of other people. Tiffany, as with all people, have the right not to have their reputation
tarnished by false statements made in national magazines. Minn. Stat. Ann. § 549.20 goes on to
state that a defendant has acted with deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others if the
defendant has knowledge of facts or intentionally disregards facts that create a high probability
of injury to the rights or safety of others and deliberately proceeds to act in conscious or
intentional disregard to the high degree of probability of injury to the rights or safety of others.
Peggy Mitchell consciously chose to write a story in which she referred to Tiffany Flowers as a
slut. Peggy Mitchell then submitted that story to be published in a national magazine. She wrote
a fictional story using the names of real people, including Tiffany Flowers, and because of the
story, Tiffany’s reputation in her town was tarnished. Peggy acted with deliberate disregard to
Tiffany’s rights, and in doing so, she ruined Tiffany’s reputation, has caused emotional damage,
and caused Tiffany to lose her job. Peggy should have been found liable and should be required
to pay punitive damages to Tiffany, because of the high degree of damage she has caused in
Tiffany’s personal life.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER TIFFANY’S LOST
WAGES BECAUSE LOST WAGES SHOULD ALWAYS BE CONSIDERED IN
DEFAMATION CASES. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW IN APPELLATE CASES
SAYS THAT CASES SHOULD BE OVERRULED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT
MAKES AN ERROR.
The trial court erred when not considering Tiffany’s lost wages as a factor when deciding
whether or not Peggy’s statement was defamatory. In Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297
N.W.2d 252 (1980), the court considered the fact that the defamatory statement made by the
defendant caused the plaintiff to lose employment opportunities. The jury awarded pecuniary and
compensatory damages to cover the already lost wages and any wages that will be lost in the
future because of the defamatory statements made by the defendant. In comparison to our case,
the trial court should have considered the wages Tiffany lost when she lost her job due to
Peggy’s defamatory statement because the statement was the direct cause of Tiffany losing her
job.
The court in Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. App. Ct. 2007) also
considered the wages that were lost by the plaintiff. They concluded that although the statement
was defamatory, the plaintiff was his own cause of his lost wages. The plaintiff lost wages because
he assaulted his girlfriend, not because of the defamatory statement made by the defendant. The

8. 8
court in Tiffany’s case should have considered the lost wages, because the statement made by
Peggy was the direct cause of Tiffany’s lost wages. Peggy’s defamatory statement was the direct
and only cause of Tiffany losing employment. Peggy should have been found liable for defamation
and damages should have been awarded on behalf of Tiffany’s lost wages.
The scope of review is defined by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04 and is upheld by the
opinion in Sauter v. Wasemiller, 389 N.W.2d 200 (1986) where it states that the appellate court
has the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment or order appealed, and can take any
other action in the interest of justice if it is required. Because of that rule, this court has the
authority to review Tiffany’s case and may also overturn the decision made by the trial court.
This court should overturn the decision made by the trial court because it is in the interest of
justice. Tiffany was wronged by Peggy when Peggy made the defamatory statement about
Tiffany in a national magazine. The defamatory statements made by Peggy harmed Tiffany’s
reputation, harmed Tiffany emotionally, and harmed Tiffany’s ability to keep gainful
employment. Peggy should have been found liable for defamation and for punitive damages.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the appellant requests this court to reverse the district
court’s ruling that Peggy Mitchell is not liable for defamation and to apply punitive damages to
Tiffany’s case.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Mathison, Esq.
Minnesota Bar Number 028709X
Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A.
South 8th Street