You are on page 1of 7

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI

AT KANSAS CITY
STEVE PENN,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
CYPRESS MEDIA, LLC.,
d/b/a THE KANSAS CITY STAR

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case #
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

This is a re-filing of an earlier action.


A request for waiver of service of summons
will be directed to Defendants then-counsel.
Should that request be denied, Plaintiff will file
a motion for appointment of a private process
server.
PLAINTIFFS PETITION FOR DAMAGES
FOR DEFAMATION, FOR PRIMA FACIE TORT AND FOR
FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY

COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and for his Second-Amended Petition
for Damages for Defamation, for Prima Facie Tort, and for False Light Invasion of Privacy states
as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff is a former columnist for the Kansas City Star. Acting pursuant to widespread
practice at the newspaper, he would occasionally use in his general interest column press releases
which described upcoming community events. Such press releases are widely-understood in the
journalism industry to be released to the press by those who want their words published with no

Electronically Filed - Jackson - Kansas City - November 07, 2014 - 11:03 AM

1416-CV26391

practice at the Star was to use these press releases without attribution, and on the basis of an
implied permission for such use.
Despite this practice, Plaintiff was falsely accused of an improper practice at a minimum
at least akin to plagiarism, and was fired. The article announcing his firing stated that he was
terminated because he had used press releases without attribution. The plain and ordinarily
understood meaning of these statements is that attribution is required and failure to include such
is improper. Thus, Plaintiff was in substance accused of professional improprieties and such
accusation was (and is) false.
Because of his former employers false and very public statements, Plaintiffs reputation
has been damaged and a he has sustained a loss of business standing and contacts as a
professional, as a result of which he has lost job opportunities. He brings this action to vindicate
those interests, and his rights more generally.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
1.

Plaintiff was formerly employed as a columnist by the Kansas City Star, a

newspaper operated by Defendant Cypress Media, LLC.


2.

While employed at the Star Plaintiffs duties generally consisted of authoring a

thrice-weekly column which is best described as a general interest column, in which Plaintiff
would do occasional human interest stories or otherwise inform the public of people and
personalities around Kansas City, and would describe and publicize upcoming events of interest
to Star readers.

Electronically Filed - Jackson - Kansas City - November 07, 2014 - 11:03 AM

or minimal editing and who do not desire attribution as to authorship. As such, the widespread

releases sent by parties who likewise wish to inform the community about upcoming
events or other matters of potential interest.
4.

The widespread practice in journalism is to treat such press releases as having been

voluntarily released by their authors into the flow of news with the intention that the release will
be reprinted or published, and preferably with no or minimal editing.
5.

As such, attribution as to the authorship of such news releases is typically not

expected by the author, nor offered by journalists who receive them.


6. In fact, Plaintiffs experience at the Star was that such attribution was not required.
7.

Accordingly, Plaintiff would occasionally use the press releases he had been

provided without such attribution.


8. This was done with the knowledge of Star supervisors.
9.

Nevertheless, one of those supervisors apparently objected to the widespread

practice and without informing Plaintiff that it should no longer be followed, decided to make
an example of Plaintiff and to push for his firing.
10. The Star agreed to this supervisors request for termination, and fired Plaintiff.
11. Upon doing so, the Star published a column announcing Plaintiffs firing and stating
that he had been fired because the Star had uncovered instances of Plaintiff using press releases
without attribution.
12. More specifically, the Stars article announcing the firing contained the
followingstatements:
a) That Plaintiff was dismissed for using material that wasnt his and representing it as
his own work;

Electronically Filed - Jackson - Kansas City - November 07, 2014 - 11:03 AM

3. Journalists and/or the newspapers for which they work sometimes receive press

c) That he was in some cases presenting others conclusions and opinions as his own
and without attribution; and
d) That Steve made some serious errors of judgment that we concluded were clear
violations of our ethics policy.
13. The plain and ordinarily understood meaning of these words was that Plaintiff had
both violated Star policy and engaged in professional misconduct. In fact, the ordinarily
understood meaning of those words is that Plaintiff committed plagiarism.
14. This action is a re-filing of an action which had been timely commenced and
subsequently dismissed without prejudice. It is filed within one year of the previous dismissal
and is therefore timely within Missouris savings statute.
COUNT I: DEFAMATION AND/OR LIBEL
15. Plaintiff hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates as if fully set forth herein the
allegations of Paragraphs One through Thirteen of this Petition.
16. Plaintiff had not engaged in professional misconduct nor committed plagiarism.
17. Thus, the statements made in the Stars article, taken in their plain and ordinarily
understood meaning, were false.
18. Alternatively, the statements, regardless if technically true, created false impressions
both that material released to the press in the form of a press release requires attribution under
Star policy as it was taught to Star employees, and that failing to do so is the lifting of
anothers words and tantamount to plagiarism.
19. The statements made were defamatory.
20. The statements made identified the Plaintiff.

Electronically Filed - Jackson - Kansas City - November 07, 2014 - 11:03 AM

b) That it was discovered that Penn had lifted material from press releases verbatim;

whether they were true or false at a time when Defendant had serious doubts as to whether the
statements were true.
22. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has sustained damage to his reputation and
a loss of business standing and contacts as a professional and has sustained economic damage in
the form of lost job opportunities.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in his favor and against Defendant in
suchamount as is fair and reasonable to compensate him for his injuries, but in any event no less
than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), prays for punitive damages, and further requests
such other or additional relief as may seem to the court to be just in the premises.
COUNT II: PRIMA FACIE TORT (IN THE ALTERNATIVE)
23. Plaintiff hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates as if fully set forth herein the
allegations of Paragraphs One through Thirteen of this Petition.
24. The acts of Defendant in publishing its article were lawful, and intentional.
25. In committing these acts, Defendant intended to injure Plaintiff,
26. As a direct and proximate result of those acts, Plaintiff has in fact sustained injury in
the form of damage to his reputation and a loss of business standing and contacts as a
professional and has sustained economic damage in the form of lost job opportunities.
27. The acts of Defendant as set forth herein were done with an absence of justification
or with an insufficient justification.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in his favor and against Defendant in such
amount as is fair and reasonable to compensate him for his injuries, but in any event no less than

Electronically Filed - Jackson - Kansas City - November 07, 2014 - 11:03 AM

21. Defendant knew the statements were false and/or acted with reckless disregard for

other or additional relief as may seem to the court to be just in the premises.
COUNT III: FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY
(IN THE ALTERNATIVE)
28. Plaintiff hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates as if fully set forth herein the
allegations of Paragraphs One through Thirteen of this Petition.
29. In doing so, the Star published information about the Plaintiff.
30. That publication placed Plaintiff before the public in a false light: to wit, by implying
if not outright stating that he had knowingly done something which he knew or should have
known violated Star policy.
31. Instead, the truth is that at a minimum, any error was the result of the Stars
maintenance of a policy or practice which was unclear and inconsistently enforced either in
design or application, or both.
32. The Star thus placed Plaintiff in a false light before the public.
33. Being placed in such false light would have been highly offensive to a reasonable
person, and was highly offensive to Plaintiff.
34. The Star had knowledge of the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in
which it placed the Plaintiff, or alternatively acted with reckless disregard of whether the
statements were or were not true.
35. As a direct and proximate result of the Stars actions, Plaintiff has sustained injury to
his reputation, has lost opportunities at employment, has suffered emotional distress, and has
sustained economic damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment in his favor and against Defendants for
such amount as is fair and reasonable to compensate him for his damages, but in any event no
6

Electronically Filed - Jackson - Kansas City - November 07, 2014 - 11:03 AM

twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), prays for punitive damages, and further requests such

other or additional relief as may seem to the court to be just in the premises.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Lyle M. Gregory


Lyle M. Gregory #40856
GREGORY AND ASSOCIATES
309 S. WASHINGTON
Raymore, MO 64083
(816) 331-8767
(816) 331-9967 fax
ATTORNEY FOR PLANTIFF

Electronically Filed - Jackson - Kansas City - November 07, 2014 - 11:03 AM

less than $25,000.00. Plaintiff further prays for punitive damages. Plaintiff also prays for such

You might also like