The Christian Action Life Movement, later known as the MOVE family, was founded in 1972 as a family of revolutionaries. In 1983, the Philadelphia MOVE members resided in a house in Philadelphia. During a standoff between the MOVE members and the Philadelphia Police, the police dropped an aerial bomb on the MOVE residence, killing MOVE members, presumably six adults and five children.
After the MOVE bombing, Dr. Janet Monge, a doctoral student at the time, assisted in identifying those killed during the MOVE bombing. In the process of this investigation, Dr. Monge and Dr. Mann (a professor of anthropology at Penn) came across remains that they believed may not have been affiliated with any of the known MOVE victims. Dr. Monge and Dr. Mann referred to these remains as Jane Doe. The City worried about its liability if the bombing killed neighbors unrelated to the incident. The City’s appointed commission and Dr. Mann issued conflicting reports as to whether these remains belonged to the MOVE family or to a Jane Doe.
The Penn Museum stored the bones for the next several years, with Dr. Monge and Dr. Mann continuing to research the bones. In August 2020, Dr. Monge published a course on Coursera, an online course platform. The bone remains were shown during the class, and Dr. Monge and one of her students compared the bones to other similar bone fragments.
Paul Mitchell was a former doctoral student of Dr. Monge. Dr. Monge alleged that Mitchell engaged in misconduct while at Penn by defacing books in the Penn Museum, engaging in plagiarism, improperly accessing the lab with friends, stealing DNA samples, and screaming at Dr. Monge, throwing objects at her, and threatening her. Dr. Monge reported these actions multiple times, but Mitchell was not punished.
In April 2021, Mitchell accused Dr. Monge of mishandling the MOVE bone fragments and engaging in professional misconduct regarding the MOVE bombing investigation. Mitchell worked with his then-girlfriend, Maya Kasutto, a writer for the news organization Billy Penn, to broadcast the same sentiments about Dr. Monge. Dr. Monge alleged that Mitchell and Kasutto worked together to “cancel” Dr. Monge by declaring that she harbored racist animus against people of African descent.
Shortly thereafter, in April 2021, a series of news articles and statements began to be published regarding Dr. Monge’s involvement in identifying the MOVE bone remains and her use of the bones in the Coursera course. Dr. Monge alleged the press attention adversely affected her reputation, as people were deterred from working with her and she was forced to remove herself from research articles and other scholarly papers.
On April 26, 2021, a group of professional associations released a statement, strongly condemning Penn, Dr. Mann, and Dr. Monge for their “horrific treatment of the [MOVE] remains” and “for the unfathomable heartlessness and disrespect shown towards the [MOVE] family.” Penn locked Dr. Monge out of her laboratory, and two days later, the President and Provost of Penn sent an email to all Penn Museum employees that they were “disturbed” to learn that the Penn Museum was keeping the MOVE remains and that it was “insensitive, unprofessional, and unacceptable.” The email went on to say that Penn hired outside investigators to look into how Penn came to possess these remains and what happened over the last four decades.
Shortly after this statement, Dr. Monge was removed from teaching classes. Penn called an action to terminate Dr. Monge’s employment, and ultimately Dr. Monge was demoted to “Museum Keeper,” a job that came with a $65,000 salary cut, and after two years, Penn would deem Dr. Monge retired.
During this time, the Institutional Review Board (IRB), Penn’s internal mechanism that investigates whether faculty research is appropriate, was never contacted. Dr. Monge alleged that the IRB could have investigated her research and potentially cleared her name. Dr. Monge alleged that she had never been found to have violated any professional, ethical, or legal standards when handling the bone fragments from the MOVE bombing.
In May 2022, Dr. Monge sued, alleging defamation, among other claims. Penn moved to dismiss the case. Defamation requires a showing of fault for a court to impose liability. That level of fault varies depending on whether the person is a public or private figure.
In this case, the Court determined that Dr. Monge was a public figure because her work related to an issue of public controversy. There was clear controversy about the bone fragment remains and whether they belonged to the MOVE family or to a Jane Doe. This dispute led to contradictory reports and the potential that the City could be liable for the deaths of individuals outside of the MOVE organization. Dr. Monge further chose to insert herself into the public controversy of the MOVE bombing when she published her Coursera course.
Because Dr. Monge was a public figure, a showing of “actual malice” was required to establish fault for defamation. Here, the Court found that Penn acted with actual malice. Multiple times, Dr. Monge raised concerns about Mitchell’s conduct, yet Penn took no action. Mitchell discussed Dr. Monge’s mishandling of bone fragments before the media firestorm about Dr. Monge began. In the wake of those allegations, Penn locked Dr. Monge out of her lab; released a statement to the Penn Museum employees describing Dr. Monge’s actions as “insensitive, unprofessional, and unacceptable;” placed Dr. Monge on a work pause; canceled Dr. Monge’s regular summer courses; demoted Dr. Monge; cut her pay; and deemed her retired after two years.
The Court found the asymmetry between Penn’s response to the complaints of Mitchell and Dr. Monge showed that Penn acted with actual malice. There was reason to doubt Mitchell’s statements, and Penn was aware of Mitchell’s potential bias against Dr. Monge, yet took no action to corroborate his complaints or investigate the matter further before publishing statements about Dr. Monge. Penn did not properly investigate the claims through its own internal mechanisms of using an IRB. The Court determined that by publishing a statement about Dr. Monge’s actions, calling them “insensitive, unprofessional, and unacceptable” before conducting any investigation created an inference that Penn acted with malice.
The Court denied Penn’s motion to dismiss.
Monge v. Univ. of Pa. (E.D.Pa. May 14, 2024) 2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 87312.
Note: This case is relevant for two reasons. First, schools should keep in mind that their public statements “canceling” or speaking out against their employees can result in defamation liability. Second, if a school is conducting an investigation, it should avoid reaching any conclusions about what happened until the investigation has finished.