holding that qualified privilege did not apply because the employer repeated the allegations without taking any “steps to investigate but relie[d] entirely on accusations either made by employees who may be biased or on secondhand hearsay with no identification of sources”
How later courts described this case
- holding that qualified privilege did not apply because the employer repeated the allegations without taking any “steps to investigate but relie[d] entirely on accusations either made by employees who may be biased or on secondhand hearsay with no identification of sources”
- holding that the employer was not entitled to qualified privilege when it took “no steps to investigate but relie[d] entirely on accusations either made by employees who may be biased or on second-hand hearsay with no identification of sources . . . .”
- concluding that “[w]hat we have here are two legal remedies for the same wrongful conduct,” and that the “plaintiff may pursue either or both [claims], provided, however, there is no double recovery”
- holding employer ineligible for qualified privilege, because it had taken no steps to investigate before publicly accusing employee, had not acted in reasonably prudent manner, and lacked reasonable or probable grounds for defamatory statement
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COYNE, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result.