Shirley Sherrod Suing Andrew Breitbart
Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 12:15PM 
Who saw this coming? Shirley Sherrod, who got caught up in the matrix last week, announced to the National Association of Black Journalists that she will be suing conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart for his release of an edited piece of video that made it appear as if Sherrod had willfully discriminated against a white farmer. After the video popped up online via Breitbart and was played on FOX News, Sherrod claims she was forced to resign from her position with the USDA.
From Politico:
Sherrod though has shown that she holds a grudge against Breitbart, accusing him last week of stoking racists to attack her.
“He knew exactly what effect that would have on not only — he knew what effect that would have on the conservative, racist people he's dealing with,” Sherrod said in an interview with CNN.
Breitbart did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Breitbart has not apologized for posting the misleading video, arguing that the incident was “not about Shirley Sherrod” and was instead about the NAACP’s accusation that the tea party has employed “racist tactics.”
Since her resignation a lot of people have walked around looking highly embarrassed, save for Breitbart, who doesn't know what shame is. He seems amazingly proud of getting a woman fired in his bid to shame the NAACP for daring to call folks who do racist things racist almost a year after everyone had already pointed out how racist that stuff was. I wish Sherrod luck in her lawsuit. I'm not optimistic about her chances.
Despite popular belief, it's pretty hard to win a libel/slander lawsuit in this country, even with things that look FRICKIN' OBVIOUS. For instance, one could argue that if she'd just refused to resign at that moment maybe she'd still have her job. Which is the "beauty" of the forced resignation. It's a way for your employers to get rid of you and avoid accountability. But I think she's got a case for the whole "dragged my name through the mud and caused me emotional harm" part. That part is PRETTY damaging. Any lawyers in the house care to weigh in on Sherrod's chances?
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (10)
Good! She also needs to sue Fox for not fact-checking and possibly her former employers (the Whitehouse) for the same reason. Although, I'm not sure that you can sue the Whitehouse (there's definitley a law that you can't sue the military - I have to look into that).
Good for her! I wish her much success!!
Why just Brietbart? Shouldn't she sue the United States as well? Of course she will not be going back to work she has made a job by sueing people. I have no sympathy for Mrs Sherrod like I had before. She is making this about more than being fire don't you think? She keeps saying this is about poor people, really?
This makes you have less respect and sympathy for Shirley Sherrod? Really? This is standing up directly against the person who irresponsibly, unethically and untruthfully edited her speech to damage her reputation and credibility and to tarnish by association the NAACP. This is her standing up and saying, hey, there are consequences when you introduce lies into the media narrative in order to advance your own agenda, whether things worked out for me personally or not. I see this as her fighting for people who may not have as much visibility and/or the wherewithal to fight similar actions. Yes, she is making this about more than her own personal firing, and bless her for it. And if she gets some extra money too, if she can make Breitbart pay, apologize, face actual consequences for his actions, great! More power to her. I'm glad to know she isn't just rolling over on this.
@ Jo, agree completely. Also, the media handling of this story reminds me of the Dan Rather Killian documents situation several years ago. I recall FOX howling about that for days. Is anyone going after them over this?
Wow I cannot believe someone is attacking Mrs.Sherrod. Why is everyone afraid of Foxnews and some nobody Blogger?
The suit is not about money it is about the principal of all the whole thing. Fox and this blogger are not above the law.
She's going to have a tough road ahead for a defamation suit, but not for the reasons you suggest. Essentially, because she is a public figure, she has the burden to prove that Breitbart "published" the statements with malicious intent. (For non-public figures, the standard is negligence.)
As to her forced resignation, that would be part of her damages calculation, and forced or not, all she would need to prove is a causal link between the defamatory statements and the loss of her job.
There are also certain privilege defenses that Breitbart could use: he could argue that his reporting of the "misconduct" was fair in light of the circumstances and while that's complete crap given his history of making crap up, it's still going to be a close call depending upon what jurisdiction she sues in.
She can't sue the US because of sovereign immunity.
What will likely happen is that she will settle and the terms of the settlement will be confidential, and Breitbart will live to make some other crap up and annoy the world.
-Angry Black Lady, Esq.
Also, "grudge"? Really Politico?
Why just Andrew? Why isn't she going to the sue the people who public called and pressured the Whitehouse to fire her. Namely, the NAACP. after all, her speech was at a NAACP sponsored event. They should have instantly known no one at one of their event would spout racist statements and be cheered by the audience. Shouldn't they? Why did they condem her, if such a thing never happens? At the end of the day Andrew can't hire or fire anyone, he didn't pressure the whitehouse to do anything. Why not sue those who fwrongly fired her without due diligence? I think we all know the answer. By the way, FOX wasn't the only news outlet that ran the story. But we aren't mentioning those either, right?
I can't think of a viable cause of action she would have against the NAACP aside from intentional infliction of emotional distress, and she'd have a hard time proving the "intentional" part.
I would think that she is suing Andrew Breitbart for defamation of character, and that her being fired or forced to resign is part of her damages calculation.
She can't really sue FOX or any other media news outlet because under New York Times v. Sullivan, she'd have to prove that they published the information with "actual malice" which is a very very hard burden to overcome. Freedom of the press and all that jazz.
I just did a bit of poking around the internets and I think I was wrong--she may not actually be a public figure, in which case the standard for a defamation suit would be negligence. If so, Breitbart's goose is cooked (if it goes to trial.)
The issue of whether or not she is a public figure may prove to be the key issue.