UM employee loses lawsuit against fraternity

loading...
BANGOR – A federal judge has ruled against the University of Maine’s student conduct officer in his lawsuit against a campus fraternity. Because David Fiacco, 42, of Old Town is a public figure, members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon could not have damaged him when they…
Sign in or Subscribe to view this content.

BANGOR – A federal judge has ruled against the University of Maine’s student conduct officer in his lawsuit against a campus fraternity.

Because David Fiacco, 42, of Old Town is a public figure, members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon could not have damaged him when they circulated information to administrators and the media about his drunken driving conviction in another state, U.S. District Judge George Singal ruled last week.

“Even though Fiacco may not desire to be a public figure, he voluntarily accepted the position of director of judicial affairs,” Singal wrote in his summary judgment order issued April 6. “The nature of the position thrust Fiacco into the public controversy surrounding the student disciplinary process. … Fiacco injected himself into the public controversy by accepting a position at the center of the controversy.”

Fiacco sued Sigma Alpha Epsilon in 2005 in U.S. District Court in Bangor claiming he suffered serious emotional distress when members of the Illinois-based fraternity five years ago distributed information about his past to reporters and administrators.

For Fiacco to prevail as a public figure, he would have had to prove that the information was false and that the fraternity acted with malice. Because he proved neither, the judge granted summary judgment to the fraternity.

Bernard Kubetz, Fiacco’s Bangor attorney, said Thursday that his client has not decided whether to appeal the decision to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

“David Fiacco and I are disappointed in the summary judgment ruling,” Kubetz said. “The actions that are the basis for the lawsuit represent what I consider to be despicable conduct by fraternity representatives including a UMO faculty member and a former president of the UMO Alumni Association.”

The attorney disagreed with the judge’s finding that Fiacco is a public figure.

“This is a reasonably close question,” he said. “The judge’s analysis is thoughtful and comprehensive but for summary judgment purposes, I do not think that David Fiacco, as a midlevel administrator at UMO with limited responsibilities in the student conduct area, rises to the level of a public official.”

Public figures most often are defined as elected officials, television and movie personalities, best-selling authors and recording artists.

Efforts to reach Richard Tucker, the Bangor attorney representing the fraternity, were unsuccessful Thursday.

SAE currently is not recognized by the university as a student fraternity although it has maintained its status with the national organization, UMaine Dean of Students Robert Dana said Thursday. The fraternity is in the process of seeking recognition from the university.

The events that led to the lawsuit began in September 2002 when Fiacco was in the process of investigating misconduct complaints after a fire damaged SAE’s house on College Avenue in Orono. Investigators found $10,000 worth of stolen signs inside. The house was closed a short time later and the university suspended the chapter for a year.

Members of the fraternity, with the assistance of a Bangor private investigator, contacted state officials in Colorado and obtained copies of his 1998 conviction for driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol level of .089 percent. The investigator also obtained information about a 1998 petition for a protection from abuse order filed against Fiacco by his then-girlfriend.

The fraternity sent copies of the Colorado court documents to members of the university board of trustees, UM’s then-President Peter Hoff, deans on the Orono campus, a campus police representative, the Maine Campus newspaper and the Bangor Daily News.

Neither newspaper published the information and Fiacco did not suffer any adverse employment action as a result of its dissemination. He claimed in his lawsuit that he became depressed, withdrew from family and friends and was forced to seek counseling as a result.


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

By continuing to use this site, you give your consent to our use of cookies for analytics, personalization and ads. Learn more.