The Case
How Embarrassing!!
Audrey sent her daughter to a local elementary school. Unhappy with her daughter’s progress throughout the school year, she wrote a brief text to many of the members of the Board of Directors of the school complaining that her daughter’s sudden regression is the result of her terribly under-qualified teacher. After detailing the teacher’s shortcomings, she added a genuine request not to disclose her complaint or identity to the teacher. Audrey wrote that her reasoning for the confidentiality was because the teacher was clearly an unstable individual who is likely to avenge the complaint in a fierce and uncontrolled manner. Shortly thereafter, one of the board members, a friend of the teacher, showed the teacher Audrey’s nasty text message. The teacher was appalled by the audacity of the text and was mortified that many of her employers and other staff members might believe it. The teacher turned to our Bet Din and complained that the text was only written because Audrey’s son and her [the teacher’s] niece were going through a bitter divorce. The text message was not only false, but it was also deeply embarrassing. The teacher explained that she is in so much distress that she can barely show her face in school. Although she believes that because of her good reputation as a teacher the text will not cause her to lose her job, nevertheless, she is seeking financial compensation for the anguish of embarrassment and defamation of character. The teacher added that only via payment authorized by a Bet Din can her name and status be rightfully restored. Audrey defended that her complaint is truthful and is unrelated to her son’s divorce, and thus, she is unwilling to compensate the teacher.
Should the Bet Din rule in favor of Audrey or the teacher and why?
Torah Law
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch by letter of the law one who humiliates another with words alone is not liable to provide monetary compensation to the victim. Nevertheless, a Bet Din will consider the mental anguish suffered by the victim and impose a mitigated payment on the offender. Early halachic authorities emphasized that verbally humiliating another with slander or the like is a severe crime and can result in penalty measures against the offender beyond mere monetary compensation. People of a community are to value the status of their membership by maintaining respect and good will for one another.
Leading halachic authorities debate whether mitigated payment is required in instances in which one knowingly caused humiliation to another with a constructive intent. A primary example of such, is one who breaks an engagement to be married. Some authorities view the breaking of an engagement as a form of embarrassment that requires monetary compensation. Although the decision not to marry is clearly constructive, nevertheless, one is consciously humiliating the other when cancelling an engagement. Many halachic authorities differ with this ruling and exempt payment for this type of humiliation. According to this view, an offender is liable to provide compensation only when he deliberately embarrasses a victim. If, however, the intent is not to humiliate, but rather is of a constructive nature, no liability is incurred.
Generally, Sephardic congregations world-wide do not impose payment for humiliation caused by a broken engagement. This ruling is strictly regarding the humiliation and mental anguish sustained, other costs or financial loss is subject to adjudication.
Interestingly, one halachic authority rules that if an offender sinfully exposed factual information that led to the humiliation of another, no monetary liability is incurred. However, even according to this opinion, the offender is required to provide evidence that his humiliating statement is indeed true. In the absence of clear evidence, he is responsible for damages. Some quantify this above exemption making it applicable only in instances in which it is productive to expose the derogatory information. However, most halachic authorities impose liability for publicizing derogatory, humiliating information about another, even if proven true.
In instances in which the information is crucial to privately reveal to another in order to protect his welfare, a competent halachic authority should be consulted.
A Bet Din will analyze whether the intent of an offender was solely constructive based on whether he or she acted excessively. Excessive behavior is sometimes a sign of an ulterior motive.
A Bet Din will seek to promote peace by arranging a settlement between the disputing litigants.
VERDICT: Unwarranted Behavior
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of the teacher and chastised Audrey for her excessive unwarranted behavior. Standard procedure of a parent unsatisfied with their child’s progress is to first confront the teacher. If the matter is not rectified, the parent is to proceed to the teacher’s supervisor. If a solution is still not found, there is always the option of switching to an alternate class. Contacting board members with a complaint about a teacher is rash and arouses suspicion of an ulterior motive. After questioning some of the board members that received Audrey’s text it was apparent that they also found Audrey’s complaint suspicious. They added that they never followed up on the complaint, as it seemed odd that they were contacted instead of the principal. In short, the impression our Bet Din received was that Audrey embarrassed herself and did little or no damage to the teacher with the peculiar content of her text. Other than the one board member who wrongfully showed the teacher the text, none of them even recalled the name of the teacher mentioned in the text. The teacher’s character was not defamed, and her job was not jeopardized. Nevertheless, we instructed Audrey to write a formal apology to each of the members of the Board of Directors for her unusual behavior and imposed on her the responsibility to appease the teacher with a token gift.
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Right of First Refusal?
Charles put his private home on the market for sale. Hymie, his next-door neighbor, was interested in the property and offered to match any price Charles received from the outside. By word of mouth, Charles found Ralph, a customer who was willing to pay 2.7 million dollars up-front for the property and go to closing within two weeks. Charles contacted Hymie and notified him of Ralph’s offer. Hymie agreed to match the purchase price. However, he requested a mortgage contingency contract with a thirty-day window to obtain a loan from the bank. Hymie reassured Charles that he was in good standing with the bank and was probably eligible to receive a loan, but Charles rejected Hymie’s offer in favor of Ralph’s immediate cash payment. Charles signed with Ralph and accepted a deposit for the sale.
Hymie was disheartened by the refusal of his long-time friend and neighbor, and he reached out to other community members to intervene on his behalf. As a result, Charles had a change of heart and verbally agreed to sell his property to Hymie with a mortgage contingency. Charles contacted Ralph and notified him of the latest developments and unilaterally sent him back his deposit.
At first, Ralph refused to hear any of the details of the story and was prepared to enforce his contract. Hymie got involved then, contacting Ralph and claiming that as a next-door neighbor he had a right of first refusal of the property. He further insisted that by Torah law Ralph was required to walk away from the deal. At this point, Ralph did not want the argument to escalate and suggested the matter be resolved in Bet Din. The three signed on for the customary binding of arbitration and presented their cases to our Bet Din.
Who is entitled to purchase the property, Hymie or Ralph? How should the Bet Din rule and why?