Anti-Slapp law plays role in backing Va. teacher and parent targeted by false online accusations

“When rumors started spreading that kids didn’t even take my class because these things were being said … that’s always every teacher’s fear,” Rigby said. “It’s always every gay teacher’s fear.” 

The students’ reaction emphasized that the remarks weren’t simply harsh opinions, Rigby said, but false statements that carry consequential weight.

Across the country, social media campaigns targeting educators have been on the rise, including in Roanoke County and South Carolina, amid contentious school board politics that test the legal boundaries of free speech and defamation.

Rigby and the other plaintiff, Vanessa Hall, who are both active in Fairfax County Public Schools committees and advocacy, alleged that defendant David Gordon, founder of the Virginia Project, used his X account to publish false and malicious statements that damaged their personal and professional reputations.

The case

Virginia’s anti-SLAPP law was central to the case, highlighting the legal limits of false speech, the civil liability it can create, and the policy gaps it exposes for people — including teachers — when the legal requirements are met.

Jason Zellman, the attorney who represented Hall and Rigby, said that Virginia has laws that protect opinions and silence criticism with the anti-SLAPP defense. Still, he says, accusatory public statements must have a factual basis. 

“And in this case… we had very declarative, actual statements that these individuals were child sex predators. They were part of a ‘grooming gang.’ They were part of a ‘child abduction scheme,’” Zellman said, quoting Gordon’s claims. “There was no qualifying language, and more importantly, there was no evidence at all, zero, to back up any of these statements.” 

In their complaints, Rigby also alleged Gordon labeled him and Hall as “notorious child sex perverts” with “free run of FCPS.”

Hall said Gordon mischaracterized her as an “employed crazy person with zero qualifications” who was given inappropriate access to children. The claims that she was involved in sexual crimes against children disturbed her the most, she said. 

“As a parent, as a Girl Scout leader, as a Sunday school teacher, as an advocate for children’s safety, that is frankly the worst thing you could say about anyone,” Hall said.

A year after the complaints were filed, juries in both cases ruled in favor of Hall and Rigby, awarding $700,000 and $350,000, respectively. 

Zellman said he is preparing for an expected appeal by Gordon.

Policy reform

Rigby and Hall’s case drew attention to the state’s policy gaps concerning defamation, especially around punitive damages and fee recovery.

Zellman and Hall argued that Virginia’s legal framework still tilts unfairly against defamed teachers because the state’s anti-SLAPP law can require plaintiffs to pay the other side’s legal bills if they lose. 

The state’s punitive damages cap was set at $350,000 in the late 1980s in such cases, and standards on jury award limits, even for egregious cases, haven’t been updated since then. 

“It just doesn’t seem appropriate,” Hall said.

Zellman added that if the court had instead found the statements made by Gordon and the Virginia Project were an expression of opinion, didn’t rise to the level of defamation, or were speech protected by the First Amendment, they could become liable for the defendant’s costs and attorneys’ fees.

“What I think is a shortcoming in the law is that … there’s not a similar reciprocal provision that if Robert and Vanessa prevail, as they did in this case, that they get their attorneys’ fees and costs reimbursed,” Zellman said. “And I do think it would provide both an incentive and caution for any party … that you have to be pretty sure about your position.”

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.