Two AU alumni are suing the university for $1.5 million for defamation of character because of an incorrect item in an alumni magazine.
The item stated the two men were married to each other and that one had just been named the chief operating officer of an advocacy organization called the Gay Rights Brigade, according to the New York Post.
The men, Ross Weil, a 2002 graduate from the Kogod School of Business, and Brett Royce, a 2001 graduate from the School of International Service, filed a lawsuit Aug. 30 in a New York court accusing the university of "gross negligence" and saying it acted maliciously, according to the Post.
"No one contacted my clients to check the information," Kaufman said, according to a United Press International report. "Obviously, neither of my clients submitted it."
The men are not gay, and no such organization called the Gay Rights Brigade exists.
Although the lawsuit claims the men suffered because of the incorrect information that they are gay, "it has nothing to do with homophobia," Kaufman told the Post.
Calls by The Eagle to Kaufman for further comment were not returned.
The university could not give many details about the case, citing ongoing legal proceedings.
"American University depends on the accuracy of its alumni in providing information they would like to appear in the alumni notes," said Maralee Csellar, director of AU media relations. "On instances where the information is unclear, AU does contact alumni for clarification. We can't comment on what was and was not done here, because the matter is under litigation."
To successfully sue for defamation of character, a plaintiff must prove that the report included defamatory language, was about the plaintiff, was disseminated, was published as a result of negligence or recklessness, was false and that the plaintiff suffered personal harm, according to "The Law of Public Communication," a textbook used in legal aspects of communications classes at AU.
One AU professor said he believes that the fact the plaintiffs filed the case in New York City may impact their case.
Since the plaintiffs must prove they suffered personal harm because of the article, the perceptions of homosexuality in the area where the case is tried will be important, according to John Watson, a professor in the School of Communication.
"Currently most people, at least in Washington, D.C., and possibly New York and California, don't think less of a person because they're gay," he said.
This perception is not prevalent in other parts of the country, Watson said.
"If they had filed it, say, in Arkansas, the likelihood of them winning would be much greater," he said.
Watson compared the evolving law of defamation of character based on homosexuality to the history of the law of defamation of character based on race. Before the civil rights movement, a plaintiff could successfully sue for defamation of character if a newspaper printed that the plaintiff was black when he or she was actually white, he said. At the time, this was considered harm to the person's reputation.
Courts have not heard a defamation of character case because of inaccurate references to someone's race since the late 1970s because they are now innocuous statements, according to Watson.
