Beck v. Tribert
711 A.2d 951, 312 N.J. Super. 335, 1998 N.J. Super. LEXIS 272 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action for slander when the defamatory statements were invited or procured by an agent of the plaintiff for the purpose of creating a basis for a lawsuit. Additionally, New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) does not apply to retaliatory actions, such as negative job references, that occur after the employment relationship has ended.
Facts:
- Richard Beck was hired by the Solbern Division of Howden Food Equipment, Inc. on August 6, 1987.
- On January 11, 1989, Beck wrote a note to his superior, Claude Tribert, stating that an outdoor crane and hoist were unsafe and needed immediate repair.
- Howden terminated Beck's employment on March 9, 1989.
- Following his termination, Beck reported various alleged dangerous conditions at the Howden facility to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
- Suspecting Tribert was giving negative job references, Beck arranged for his friend, Stanley Halley, to pose as a prospective employer and contact Tribert in November 1990.
- During the call with Halley, Tribert made negative statements about Beck, including that Beck had reported the company to OSHA.
- On December 17, 1990, Beck had another friend, John Donnell, also pose as a prospective employer and call Tribert, who again made negative statements, accusing Beck of planting evidence for the OSHA complaint.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Beck filed a complaint against Howden Food Equipment, Inc. and Claude Tribert in a New Jersey trial court, alleging slander, CEPA violations, and other torts.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on each of plaintiff's claims.
- The trial court granted defendants' motions, dismissing plaintiff's entire complaint.
- Plaintiff Richard Beck appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a plaintiff maintain a slander action based on defamatory statements made by his former employer to agents of the plaintiff who were posing as prospective employers to elicit those statements?
Opinions:
Majority - Kleiner, J.A.D.
No. A plaintiff cannot maintain a slander action for an injury that he invited. The court held that when the publication of defamatory matter is invited, instigated, or procured by the person defamed or their agent, they generally cannot complain of the resulting injury, particularly when it is elicited for the purpose of predicating an action thereon. Here, Beck's friends, Halley and Donnell, were not making a good faith inquiry to ascertain the source of a prior defamatory statement; rather, they acted as 'provocative decoys' to elicit comments from Tribert. Therefore, because Beck procured the publication of the defamatory statements through his agents for purposes of litigation, his slander claim is barred under the doctrine of invited defamation established in Mick v. American Dental Ass'n.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the defense of invited defamation, also known as consent, in New Jersey tort law. It establishes a clear distinction between a good-faith inquiry to verify a pre-existing defamatory statement and a 'provocative decoy' used to generate new statements for the purpose of litigation. The ruling effectively prevents plaintiffs from manufacturing their own defamation claims, thereby discouraging setups designed to entrap potential defendants. The case also provides a key interpretation of New Jersey's CEPA, significantly narrowing its scope by holding that its protections against 'retaliatory action' do not extend to post-employment conduct like negative job references.
Unlock the full brief for Beck v. Tribert