Chambers v. American Trans Air, Inc.
1991 Ind. App. LEXIS 1413, 1991 WL 170911, 577 N.E.2d 612 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Communications from a former employer to a prospective employer concerning a former employee's work characteristics are protected by a qualified privilege, which can only be overcome by a showing of abuse, such as statements motivated primarily by ill will or made with reckless disregard for the truth.
Facts:
- Becky Chambers was employed by American Trans Air, Inc. (ATA) from October 1982 to July 1987, where Laura Knowles and John Piburn were her supervisors.
- After resigning due to a dispute over working conditions, Chambers had difficulty finding new employment.
- Suspecting she was receiving poor references, Chambers instructed her mother to call ATA, pose as a prospective employer, and inquire about her performance.
- Chambers' mother spoke with Knowles, who stated Chambers 'did not get along well with other employees' and was 'somewhat dependable.'
- Chambers then had her boyfriend call ATA, also posing as a prospective employer, and speak with Piburn.
- Piburn told the boyfriend that Chambers 'does not work good with other people,' 'is a trouble maker,' and 'would not be a good person to rehire.'
- There was no evidence that any actual prospective employers ever contacted or spoke to Knowles or Piburn about Chambers.
Procedural Posture:
- Becky Chambers filed a defamation lawsuit against American Trans Air, Inc., Laura Knowles, and John Piburn in the trial court.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of publication, consent, and qualified privilege.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding as a matter of law that there was no publication of the statements.
- Chambers, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are negative statements made by a former employer to individuals believed to be prospective employers protected by a qualified privilege from a defamation claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Rucker, J.
Yes, such statements are protected by a qualified privilege. The court held that communications between a former employer and a person reasonably believed to be a prospective employer regarding a former employee are protected by a qualified privilege. This privilege is grounded in the social utility of encouraging full and unrestricted communication on matters of common interest, such as employment references. The statements made by Knowles and Piburn fall under this privilege because they believed they were speaking to prospective employers. The burden then shifted to Chambers to demonstrate that the privilege was abused. Chambers failed to provide evidence that the statements were primarily motivated by ill will or made with reckless disregard for the truth; mere animosity between an employee and supervisor is insufficient to defeat the privilege. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case formally establishes in Indiana law that a qualified privilege attaches to employment references given by former employers to prospective employers. It sets a high bar for former employees attempting to sue for defamation based on a bad reference, requiring them to prove actual abuse of the privilege rather than just the falsity of the statements. The decision strengthens protections for employers, allowing them to provide candid, even critical, feedback without excessive fear of litigation, which in turn serves the public interest of enabling informed hiring decisions.
