Nowik v. Mazda Motors of Am.(East)
1988 WL 33695, 523 So.2d 769 (1988)
Rule of Law:
An employer's negative job reference containing allegedly malicious statements of mixed opinion may defeat a qualified privilege defense and form the basis for defamation and intentional interference with a prospective business relationship, thereby precluding summary judgment when material facts are in dispute.
Facts:
- Dennis Nowik was employed by Mazda Motors of America (East) Inc. ('Mazda Motors') for two and a half years as a district parts manager in Jacksonville, a job requiring significant personal communication, travel, and interaction with dealers.
- Jack Bramble, Nowik's supervisor, perceived issues with Nowik's job performance and ultimately terminated his employment.
- Nowik subsequently applied for a similar employment position with Heavy Equipment Repair (HER), a Georgia company.
- Gene Moss, the HER interviewer, was favorably impressed with Nowik during the interview and testified that he would have hired Nowik if not for a negative reference from Mazda Motors.
- Mazda Motors provided a reference to HER stating that while Nowik's job knowledge was good, his attitude, dependability, and quantity of work were fair, and his work quality and adaptability to the job were poor.
- Nowik alleged that Bramble personally disliked him and made derogatory statements about him during his employment, including assertions that Nowik's only success was due to carrying a gun.
- Evidence was presented suggesting that Nowik's district sales figures were competitive, and another supervisor testified that Nowik's attitude toward his job was 'great,' conflicting with Bramble's negative assessment.
- HER sent Nowik a letter confirming that Mazda Motors' reference was the sole reason he was not hired.
Procedural Posture:
- Dennis Nowik sued Mazda Motors of America (East) Inc. in a trial court (court of first instance) for defamation and intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship.
- The trial court granted Mazda Motors' motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing Nowik's claims without a full trial.
- Nowik, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's summary judgment ruling to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District; Mazda Motors was 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 an employer's negative job reference, containing allegedly malicious statements of mixed opinion, preclude summary judgment on claims of defamation and intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship when facts regarding malice, the truth of the statements, and the nature of the prospective relationship are genuinely disputed?
Opinions:
Majority - Shivers, J.
Yes, an employer's negative job reference containing allegedly malicious statements of mixed opinion does preclude summary judgment on claims of defamation and intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship when facts regarding malice, the truth of the statements, and the nature of the prospective relationship are genuinely disputed. The court reversed the summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained for a jury to resolve, making summary judgment inappropriate. Regarding the defamation claim, the court acknowledged that a qualified privilege generally protects an employer's statements made in good faith on a proper occasion. However, this privilege can be overcome by a showing of malice or bad faith. Nowik presented evidence—such as supervisor Bramble's alleged personal dislike and derogatory statements, along with conflicting assessments of his job performance—from which a jury could infer malice, thereby raising a factual dispute about Mazda's good faith. The court also differentiated between 'pure opinion,' which is generally not actionable defamation, and 'mixed expression of opinion.' Mazda's statements were classified as 'mixed expressions of opinion' because they implied undisclosed defamatory facts as their basis, making them actionable. Citing Lundquist v. Alewine for the elements of qualified privilege and Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Gellert and From v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. for the distinction between pure and mixed opinion, the court found the truth of the statements disputed and the opinions actionable. Concerning the intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship claim, the court reiterated that its elements include the existence of a business relationship, the defendant's knowledge of it, intentional and unjustified interference, and resulting damage. It clarified that an enforceable contract is not necessary; a prospective business relationship, such as an interview that resulted in a decision to hire pending a reference check, is sufficient. The facts showed that Nowik had established such a relationship with HER, which was derailed solely by Mazda's negative reference. Thus, Nowik had a valid cause of action. The court referenced Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton and Duval Laundry Company, Inc. v. Reif to support its reasoning that a prospective employment opportunity falls within the scope of a protected business relationship. Since the evidence allowed for more than one inference regarding both claims, the court concluded that a jury should determine the facts.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of summary judgment, particularly in employment-related torts, by emphasizing that factual disputes over malice, truth, and the nature of an 'opinion' or a 'relationship' must go to a jury. It strengthens an individual's protection against defamatory employment references by making it harder for employers to claim absolute privilege or shield negative comments as mere 'pure opinions' if they imply undisclosed facts. The ruling also expands the definition of 'advantageous business relationship' for tortious interference claims, extending protection to concrete prospective employment opportunities, thereby offering greater recourse to individuals whose job prospects are unfairly sabotaged by former employers.
