Diorio v. Ossining Union Free School District
946 N.Y.S.2d 195, 96 A.D.3d 710 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A complaint alleging defamation can survive a motion to dismiss, despite the applicability of the common-interest privilege, if it pleads specific facts of malice. Similarly, a prima facie tort claim is sufficiently pleaded if it alleges special damages and asserts that the defendant's actions were motivated solely by disinterested malevolence.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, a bus driver for Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc. (Baumann), was involved in a verbal altercation with a fellow employee, Carlos Sanchez.
- Following the altercation, Sanchez wrote a memorandum to their terminal supervisor, William Heitmann, alleging that the plaintiff had threatened to kill Sanchez.
- Heitmann then held a meeting with the plaintiff and a union representative, during which the plaintiff allegedly became very upset.
- At the request of Mary E. Fountain, an employee of the Ossining Union Free School District, Heitmann sent her an e-mail about the plaintiff.
- In the email, Heitmann repeated Sanchez's allegations, described the plaintiff's behavior at the meeting as a 'tantrum', called him a 'loose nut', alluded to the Columbine High School shooting, and stated he was a threat to children.
- Heitmann's email urged Fountain to disqualify the plaintiff from driving school buses.
- Shortly after, the School District disqualified the plaintiff from driving a school bus.
- Baumann then terminated the plaintiff's employment, citing the disqualification and the lack of other available work.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff's union challenged his termination in an arbitration proceeding, where an arbitrator found Baumann had violated the collective bargaining agreement.
- The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, Westchester County (a trial-level court), against Baumann and Heitmann, among others, for libel and prima facie tort.
- The Baumann defendants filed a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint against them.
- The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- The Baumann defendants (as appellants) appealed the denial of their motion to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court), with the plaintiff acting 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:
Does a complaint stating claims for libel and prima facie tort survive a CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss when it alleges that defamatory statements, though subject to the common-interest privilege, were made with malice, and pleads special damages in the form of lost wages?
Opinions:
Majority - Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Austin, JJ.
Yes. A complaint stating claims for libel and prima facie tort survives a motion to dismiss under these circumstances. For the libel claim, while the communication between Heitmann and the School District falls under the common-interest privilege, the plaintiff's complaint overcomes this privilege at the pleading stage by including numerous and specific allegations of malice, such as Heitmann and Sanchez colluding to circumvent the collective bargaining agreement and terminate the plaintiff's employment. For the prima facie tort claim, the complaint sufficiently pleads the required elements by alleging special damages (lost wages and benefits) and asserting that the defendants' actions were motivated solely by malice or 'disinterested malevolence'.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the pleading standards for intentional torts in the employment context, particularly when a qualified privilege is involved. It clarifies that a plaintiff can defeat a motion to dismiss a defamation claim by pleading specific facts that create a plausible inference of malice, rather than just making conclusory allegations. The case also affirms that alleging lost wages and benefits is sufficient to meet the 'special damages' requirement for a prima facie tort, ensuring its viability as a cause of action for employees who suffer financial harm from malicious acts that might otherwise be legal.
