Shaw v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. case brief
818 F. Supp. 1539 (D. Fla. 1993)
SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff former employee instituted an action against defendant former employer and asserted that he had been defamed by assertions by agents of the former employer that the former employee was a thief and had stolen cigarettes. The former employer filed a motion for summary judgment.
OVERVIEW: The former employee was terminated and prosecuted for theft after a customer of the former employer accused him of stealing cartons of cigarettes from a warehouse. After the former employee was acquitted he brought an action against the former employer for defamation because an agent of the former employer had spoken about the circumstances of the termination with another customer.
HOLDING:
The court granted summary judgment to the former employer because plaintiff failed to establish the element of express malice to rebut the presumption of good faith raised by defendant's defense of qualified privilege.
ANALYSIS:
-There was no dispute as to the circumstances surrounding the publication, and there was no dispute regarding express malice.
-It was clear that the agent had communicated with the customer only at the customer's request, and then only for the reason that it was necessary to explain to the customer the reason that the former employee was no longer making deliveries to the customer.
-The employee failed to provide any evidence of the existence of express malice, and the absence of this element did not create a material issue of fact.
OUTCOME: The court granted summary judgment to the former employer in the action by a former employee that asserted that he had been defamed by agents of the former employer who had stated to others that he was a thief.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
818 F. Supp. 1539 (D. Fla. 1993)
SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff former employee instituted an action against defendant former employer and asserted that he had been defamed by assertions by agents of the former employer that the former employee was a thief and had stolen cigarettes. The former employer filed a motion for summary judgment.
OVERVIEW: The former employee was terminated and prosecuted for theft after a customer of the former employer accused him of stealing cartons of cigarettes from a warehouse. After the former employee was acquitted he brought an action against the former employer for defamation because an agent of the former employer had spoken about the circumstances of the termination with another customer.
HOLDING:
The court granted summary judgment to the former employer because plaintiff failed to establish the element of express malice to rebut the presumption of good faith raised by defendant's defense of qualified privilege.
ANALYSIS:
-There was no dispute as to the circumstances surrounding the publication, and there was no dispute regarding express malice.
-It was clear that the agent had communicated with the customer only at the customer's request, and then only for the reason that it was necessary to explain to the customer the reason that the former employee was no longer making deliveries to the customer.
-The employee failed to provide any evidence of the existence of express malice, and the absence of this element did not create a material issue of fact.
OUTCOME: The court granted summary judgment to the former employer in the action by a former employee that asserted that he had been defamed by agents of the former employer who had stated to others that he was a thief.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment