Dean awarded $3 million in Rolling Stone defamation case

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. -- Jurors awarded a University of Virginia administrator $3 million Monday for her portrayal in a now-discredited Rolling Stone magazine article about the school's handling of an alleged gang rape at a fraternity house.

The 10-member jury's decision came after they concluded Friday the magazine, its publisher and reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely were responsible for defamation, with actual malice, of former associate dean of students Nicole Eramo in the 2014 story "A Rape on Campus."

Eramo sued the magazine for $7.5 million, claiming it cast her as a villain who sought to discourage the woman identified only as Jackie from reporting her alleged assault to police.

A police investigation found no evidence to back Jackie's rape claims.

Jurors heard testimony Monday about the extent to which the story damaged Eramo's life and reputation before they began deliberating to decide how much to award her in damages.

Eramo told jurors after the story's publication, she had trouble sleeping, feared for her safety and struggled with how to explain what was happening to her then-7-year-old son.

One day, she crawled under her desk and contemplated suicide as she felt her world come crashing down around her, she said. Her husband testified she told him: "I don't know that I can live anymore."

"I just wanted to disappear," said Eramo, who cried throughout much of her testimony. "I didn't know how it was going to be OK."

She claims the article prompted the university to move her out of her job as an associate dean into a different administrative role she doesn't like as much because she rarely works with students.

When the article was published, she was preparing to undergo a double mastectomy for breast cancer. Eramo and her attorneys suggested the stress she was under could have contributed to a post-surgery infection that led to a hospital stay.

"Even the strongest people have a breaking point," said Tom Clare, an attorney for Eramo.

The story roiled the University of Virginia campus, prompted calls for Eramo's resignation and sparked a national conversation about sexual assault at elite institutions.

Jackie's story fell apart after reporters from other outlets began asking questions and determined Rolling Stone never spoke to the woman's alleged attackers -- or verified their existence -- before going to print.

Because the judge determined Eramo was a public figure, she had to prove Rolling Stone made statements with "actual malice," meaning it knew what it was writing about her was false or entertained serious doubts whether it might be true.

Jurors found the magazine and its publisher, Wenner Media, acted with actual malice because they republished the article on Dec. 5 with an editor's note after they knew about the problems with Jackie's story.

The jury also found Erdely acted with actual malice on six claims: two statements in the article and four statements to media outlets after the story was published.