A judge dismissed a defamation lawsuit by Montezuma-Cortez School District Superintendent Harry “Tom” Burris, saying social worker Jonathan “JJ” Lewis was shielded by Colorado’s anti-SLAPP law and mandatory-reporter immunity when he reported allegations of sexual abuse.
U.S. 22nd Judicial District Court Judge William Furse on Nov. 4 granted Lewis’ special motion to dismiss, finding Burris failed to show a reasonable likelihood that Lewis defamed him with his reports.
Furse also ordered Burris to pay Lewis’ attorney fees and costs related to the special motion to dismiss.
An 11-page document from the 22nd Judicial District, obtained by The Journal, detailed the evidence gathered in the case.
In 2023, a parent told Burris she was concerned that a high school teacher allegedly invited her son to her home outside school hours, shared personal information and consumed alcohol in front of students.
The parent later testified she never alleged a sexual relationship between her son and the teacher and never asked Burris to keep the matter secret.
In a call recorded in June 2024 between Burris and then-Human Resources Director Cynthia Eldredge, Burris said the parent feared her son was going to “get laid” at the teacher’s house and that the parent had made him promise not to report it.
Eldredge later shared the recording with Lewis. As a licensed social worker and mandatory reporter, Lewis contacted the Child Abuse Hotline on July 13, 2024, and later spoke with Cortez police. According to the document, Lewis told authorities he understood from the recording that possible sexual contact occurred between the teacher and the student and Burris failed to report it.
Police later found no evidence of abuse by the teacher, who was terminated by the district.
Burris was cited in August 2024 for misdemeanor failure to report suspected child abuse. In Colorado, a mandatory reporter who willfully fails to report suspected child abuse or neglect can be charged with a Class 2 misdemeanor under specifically C.R.S. 19-3-304. Penalties can include up to 120 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $750.
The charge was resolved in February through a court diversion agreement that included mandatory reporter training.
Burris filed the defamation lawsuit against Lewis in June, alleging Lewis deliberately misrepresented the recording to authorities out of personal or political dislike for Burris, causing harm to his reputation and financial loss to the school district.
Furse ruled Lewis’ statements did not differ from what an objective listener would take from the recording. Furse also found no evidence Lewis falsified information or had a “high degree” of awareness that any reported information could be false.
Furse held Lewis also has qualified immunity under Colorado’s mandatory reporter statute, which presumes good faith unless “willful, wanton and malicious” conduct is proven.
Qualified immunity under C.R.S. 19-3-309, titled “Immunity from liability,” says in part:
“Any person, other than the perpetrator, complicitor, coconspirator or accessory, participating in good faith in the making of a report, in the facilitation of the investigation of such a report, or in a judicial proceeding held pursuant to this title … or otherwise performing his duties or acting pursuant to this part 3 shall be immune from any liability, civil or criminal … unless a court of competent jurisdiction determines that such person’s behavior was willful, wanton and malicious. For the purpose of any proceedings, civil or criminal, the good faith of any such person reporting child abuse … shall be presumed.”
Furse determined Burris presented no evidence capable of overcoming that presumption, even after considering Lewis’ prior public criticism of Burris on unrelated issues.
“Even after considering the defendant's demonstrated animosity toward Superintendent Burris, the plaintiff is no closer to proving the material falsity of defendant’s statements,” the document said. It added that Lewis’ prior public criticisms were unrelated to the comments he made to investigators.
“While plaintiff's evidence demonstrates defendant is unhappy with Mr. Burris’s conduct as superintendent, such evidence has no bearing on whether the challenged statements were materially false and is not enough to show that defendant’s reporting was a product of willful, wanton and malicious conduct. Therefore, the court finds plaintiff has not shown a reasonable probability of prevailing as defendant’s good faith presumption and immunity per C.R.S. 19-3-309 is unlikely to be overcome.”
