In a rather interesting dispute over postings on a personal website and on-line forum, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently entered an order directing the plaintiff to choose between a remittitur (i.e. reduction) of his $236,000 jury verdict to $53,000 or a new trial. The plaintiff, a Maryland attorney, filed a defamation lawsuit against an on-line poster who questioned the plaintiff’s ethical conduct, accused him of the criminal act of extortion, and stated that the plaintiff had been discharged from his employment with a law firm as a result of such conduct. A copy of the court’s memorandum opinion can be found here (the Factual Background section is worth reading just for the on-line postings that the jury found to be defamatory).
Contributed by Eric A. Welter.Archive for the ‘Defamation’ Category
District Court Remits Large Defamation Verdict in Richmond
Friday, September 4th, 2009Defamation Claim Survives Summary Judgment
Monday, August 24th, 2009In Wynn v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment as to a defamation claim. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged wrongful termination, conversion of her funds, and defamation by the publishing of her termination for job abandonment. The court granted defendants’ motion regarding the wrongful termination and conversion, but it denied the motion as to the defamation claim. A copy of the opinion can be found here. More after the break.
Virginia Supreme Court Remands Defamation Case For Trial
Wednesday, February 11th, 2009On January 16, 2009, the Virginia Supreme Court remanded the case of Hyland vs. Raytheon Technical Services Company for a jury trial in the Fairfax County Circuit Court. A copy of the opinion is here. We previously commented on the lower court granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a post here. More after the break.
A Lesson For Employers In $3 Million Defamation Verdict
Monday, November 3rd, 2008A federal court jury in Greenville, South Carolina, has awarded a Target customer $3 million in her defamation suit against the company. Although not an employment case, the case has an interesting lesson for employers.
$3.5 Million Defamation Case Dismissed On Remand
Friday, December 14th, 2007According to The VLW Blog, the Fairfax County Circuit Court has dismissed on remand the defamation claims of a former Raytheon executive who won one of the largest jury verdicts in Virginia in 2005.
In-House Counsel Not Liable For Defamation
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007Can in-house counsel be held liable for defamation by sending a termination letter to an employee’s attorney recounting the grounds for the termination? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said “no” under North Dakota law in Humann v. KEM Elec. Coop., Inc., No. 06-3408 (8th Cir. 2007). Humann retained a lawyer after being placed on administrative leave from her position. During the leave, in-house counsel contacted Humann to discuss a severance package. Humann retained a lawyer, who sent a demand letter. “Rather than making any further offer, [in-house counsel] sent [her lawyer] a letter . . . stating that Humann’s employment at KEM was terminated and giving a number of reasons, such as insubordination and failure to perform her job satisfactorily.” Humann sued her former employer and included a defamation claim against the in-house attorney for defamation.
The district court dismissed the defamation claim on summary judgment and the court of appeals affirmed. Citing North Dakota law, which makes communications regarding proposed or threatened judicial proceedings privileged from defamation claims, the court found that the in-house attorney’s letter was privileged because it was in response to a letter referring to things such as a “prima facie case,” “remedies,” and “actions against KEM.”
Although escaping a defamation claim based on a privilege is certainly the preferred route, this decision is a reminder to all who document employee terminations that the documentation must be truthful.
