Elbeshbeshy v. Franklin Institute
618 F. Supp. 170, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16716 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's statement in an employee's record that the reason for termination was 'lack of cooperation' can be considered defamatory if it is capable of harming the employee's reputation by implying they are insubordinate, obnoxious, or antagonistic.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was employed by The Franklin Institute in its nuclear structural mechanics unit from January 8, 1984 to April 17, 1984.
- Plaintiff's job involved drafting technical proposals regarding nuclear power plants.
- Plaintiff drafted two proposals that his supervisor, Dr. Vu Con, believed contained substantive shortcomings.
- Plaintiff disagreed with his supervisor's assessment of his work.
- Dr. Con's supervisor, Dr. Salvatore Carfagno, observed that the working relationship between Plaintiff and Dr. Con was not pleasant.
- On April 17, 1984, The Franklin Institute terminated Plaintiff's employment after approximately three and a half months.
- The reason provided in Plaintiff's official employment record for the termination was 'lack of cooperation.'
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against his former employer, The Franklin Institute, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The lawsuit included claims for defamation and wrongful discharge.
- The Franklin Institute (defendant) filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the defamation claim and the request for punitive damages without a full trial.
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 an employer's statement that an employee was terminated for 'lack of cooperation' constitute a potentially defamatory statement sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Bechtle, District Judge.
Yes. An employer's statement that an employee was terminated for 'lack of cooperation' can be defamatory. The court held that the assertion, particularly after a short employment period, could reasonably lead third persons to believe the plaintiff was 'irremediably insubordinate, obnoxious, and antagonistic,' thereby harming his reputation. The court reasoned that stating someone lacks cooperation is substantively different and more damaging than stating there was a personality conflict or that the employee was unqualified. The court also rejected the defendant's other arguments, finding that communication of the statement to other employees constitutes publication and that the plaintiff raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the defendant's qualified privilege was abused through malice.
Analysis:
This decision is significant because it establishes that even vague, seemingly neutral language used by an employer as a reason for termination can form the basis of a defamation claim. It cautions employers against using catch-all phrases like 'lack of cooperation,' as they can carry a defamatory implication that attacks an employee's character rather than their skills or fit. The ruling also reinforces a broad definition of 'publication' within a corporate setting, where internal communications to other agents of the employer satisfy the element. Finally, by holding that a wrongful discharge claim can sound in tort, the court opens the door for punitive damages, increasing the potential liability for employers in such cases.
