Talking behind someone’s back can be harassment, Arizona Supreme Court rules

PHOENIX – The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a person can harass someone by saying damaging things about them to other people, not just by speaking to the victim directly.

The unanimous decision clarifies how Arizona’s harassment law applies when harmful comments are made behind a person’s back.

The justices said harassment can occur even when a victim never hears the words themselves.

The case before the Supreme Court

The case they were considering involved Briana Hernandez and Luis Loarca, two people who share a 10-year-old daughter.

Hernandez worked at the school their daughter attended.

She asked a court to protect her from Loarca, saying he was trying to get her in trouble at work by making harmful comments about her to their daughter’s teacher and principal.

After one of those comments, Hernandez received a written warning from her boss.

A trial judge sided with Hernandez and granted the protection order. The Arizona Court of Appeals threw it out, saying Loarca’s words were aimed at the school staff, not at Hernandez herself.

What the Arizona Supreme Court ruled

But the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge.

Chief Justice Ann Timmer wrote that Arizona’s harassment law focuses on who the conduct is meant to target, not just who hears the words.

“A communication may be ‘directed at’ a victim even if conveyed to a third party,” Timmer wrote in the opinion. “So long as the victim is its intended target.”

The Court compared it to filing a false police report. The person making the report isn’t talking to the victim, but the goal is clearly to hurt them.

The justices were careful to say the ruling has limits. Not every unflattering comment made to a third party counts as harassment. The behavior only crosses the line when it’s designed to cause actual harm for the person being targeted.

The Court agreed with the trial judge that Loarca’s statements were meant to cause Hernandez problems on the job.

It sent the case back to the Court of Appeals to consider other issues that court hadn’t yet addressed, including Loarca’s argument that the order violated his free speech rights.

Related

Arizona judicial review board says all judges on 2026 ballot meet performance standardsMaryland lawmakers to consider steps toward partisan redistricting for 2028At colleges, the AI boom means everyone wants to dabble in computer scienceTrial of Massachusetts mom accused of killing her 3 children enters 2nd week of testimonyIran déjà vu: Trump once again threatens massive escalation against Tehran only to walk backPedestrian left in critical condition after hit-and-run in west Phoenix