COCKRAM v. Genesco, Inc.
680 F.3d 1046, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11608, 33 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1715 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public statement can be actionably defamatory if its 'gist' or 'sting' creates a false impression of intentional misconduct, even if its component parts are technically true. An individual who is involuntarily thrust into a public controversy is considered a private figure for defamation purposes and only needs to prove negligence, not actual malice.
Facts:
- Jessica Cockram, an employee at a Journeys store owned by Genesco, Inc., assisted Keith Slater, an African-American customer, with a merchandise return.
- To process the return, Cockram entered a generic phone number into the register, a common practice for efficiency.
- Unbeknownst to Cockram, a former employee, Richard Hamill, had previously entered a racial slur into the store's database associated with that generic number.
- Cockram unwittingly selected the database entry containing the slur, which then printed on the customer's return receipt.
- She signed the receipt without reading it and handed it to Slater.
- After the incident gained public attention, Genesco fired Cockram.
- Genesco then issued a public statement announcing that an employee had 'entered highly inappropriate statements' in a form, that the act was not authorized, and that '[t]his employee has been terminated.'
- Following Genesco's statement, Cockram received numerous threats and messages accusing her of being a racist, which caused her to fear for her safety and temporarily move out of her apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- Jessica Cockram sued her former employer, Genesco, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleging defamation and false light invasion of privacy.
- The district court granted Genesco's motion to dismiss the false light claim.
- The district court subsequently granted summary judgment to Genesco on the defamation claim, ruling that the company's statements were substantially true.
- Cockram, as the appellant, appealed both the dismissal of the false light claim and the summary judgment on the defamation claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with Genesco as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do an employer's public statements, which imply an employee intentionally committed a racist act when she acted unwittingly, give rise to a valid defamation claim where the employee is an involuntary private figure?
Opinions:
Majority - Gruender, J.
Yes, an employer's statements that imply intentional misconduct can support a defamation claim, even if the employee's actions were unwitting. A reasonable jury could find that the 'gist' or 'sting' of Genesco's statements was false because they implied Cockram intentionally entered the racial slur, not merely that she violated a minor company policy. Phrases like 'shocked and sickened' suggest intentional, malicious conduct rather than an inadvertent mistake. Furthermore, Cockram is a private figure, not a limited-purpose public figure, because she did not voluntarily inject herself into the public controversy but was unwillingly drawn into it. As a private figure, she only needs to prove negligence, not the higher standard of actual malice. Finally, a jury could reasonably conclude that the reputational harm she suffered—such as threats and accusations of racism—was specifically caused by Genesco's statements, distinguishing it from the harm caused by general media coverage prior to the company's announcement.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'gist or sting' doctrine in defamation law, clarifying that the overall defamatory implication of a statement matters more than the literal truth of its individual parts. It also provides a strong precedent for defining an individual as a private, rather than a limited-purpose public, figure when they are involuntarily caught in a media controversy, thus lowering their burden of proof. The case serves as a cautionary tale for employers, demonstrating that public statements made after terminating an employee can create significant legal liability if they create a misleading narrative about the employee's conduct. It affirms that even when multiple sources contribute to reputational harm, a plaintiff can survive summary judgment by presenting evidence that the defendant's specific statements were a distinct cause of the damage.
