Gibson v. Philip Morris, Inc.
not provided (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Internal corporate communications constitute publication for the purposes of a defamation claim, and an employer's qualified privilege to make such communications is abused if the employer acts with reckless disregard for the truth by failing to properly investigate the veracity of defamatory statements before taking adverse action against an employee.
Facts:
- Randy Gibson was an employee of Philip Morris, Inc. and was promoted to division manager in June 1989.
- Philip Morris company policy prohibited the sale of promotional "incentive items," such as Marlboro belt buckles, and stated that such conduct could result in termination.
- In August 1988, Gibson's wife held a yard sale at their home while Gibson was away at an all-day sales meeting with his coworkers.
- Over a year later, in October 1989, Gibson's coworker, Beverly Brock, told their manager, Edward Giancola, that she had seen Marlboro belt buckles offered for sale at Gibson's yard sale.
- At Giancola's request, Brock and another coworker, Charles Robinson, provided written statements falsely claiming they saw Philip Morris incentive items for sale at a yard sale at Gibson's home.
- Giancola did not ask Gibson for an explanation about the yard sale allegations or conduct any further investigation to verify the claims, such as checking company records to see where Gibson was on that day.
- Giancola forwarded the written statements up the corporate chain of command, recommending Gibson's termination.
- On November 20, 1989, Philip Morris discharged Gibson, citing the sale of incentive items as a primary reason.
Procedural Posture:
- Randy Gibson filed a complaint against Philip Morris, Inc. and several employees in an Illinois trial court for wrongful discharge and defamation.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found for the defendants on the wrongful discharge claim but found for Gibson on the defamation claim.
- The trial court awarded Gibson $215,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.
- The defendants, Philip Morris et al., as appellants, appealed the judgment on the defamation claim to the Illinois 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:
Does an employer commit actionable defamation when it terminates an employee based on false statements made by coworkers that are communicated internally, where the employer possesses a qualified privilege but abuses it by failing to properly investigate the truth of the statements?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hopkins
Yes. An employer commits actionable defamation because while a qualified privilege exists for internal corporate communications, that privilege is abused by a reckless disregard for the truth. The statements made by Gibson's coworkers were defamatory per se as they imputed a want of integrity in the discharge of his employment duties by accusing him of theft of company property. The court rejected the argument that internal corporate communications do not constitute publication, finding no such rule in Illinois law. Although Philip Morris had a qualified privilege to investigate suspected employee misconduct, it abused that privilege by failing to conduct a proper and complete investigation into the truth of the allegations. Giancola's failure to ask Gibson for his side of the story or to otherwise verify the claims, coupled with the reliance on those uninvestigated statements by every manager in the chain of command, constituted a reckless disregard of Gibson's rights. This abuse of the privilege makes the otherwise protected communications actionable as defamation.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that internal corporate communications can serve as the basis for a defamation claim in Illinois, rejecting the theory that a corporation is merely 'talking to itself.' It solidifies the principle that an employer's qualified privilege to discuss employee matters is not absolute and is contingent on good faith. The decision imposes a duty on employers to conduct reasonable investigations into serious allegations before taking disciplinary action; a failure to do so can be construed as reckless disregard for the truth, thereby forfeiting the privilege and exposing the company to liability. This precedent incentivizes employers to adopt fair and thorough investigative procedures to avoid defamation claims arising from internal accusations.
Unlock the full brief for Gibson v. Philip Morris, Inc.