Olson v. 3M Co.
188 Wis. 2d 25, 1994 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1197, 523 N.W.2d 578 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer has a conditional privilege to publish defamatory statements about an employee's termination for misconduct, and this privilege extends to communications with the media and the broader community when the employer is a major presence in that community and has an important interest in protecting its reputation and informing the public that it enforces its workplace policies.
Facts:
- Phillip Olson and Randal Konichek were employed by 3M Company at its plant in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin.
- A co-worker, Yong C., accused Olson, Konichek, and other employees of harassment, including sexual harassment.
- 3M conducted an extensive internal investigation, interviewing Yong C., Olson, Konichek, and numerous other employees and managers.
- Yong C. also filed a formal written complaint with the Prairie du Chien Police Department, which initiated its own separate investigation.
- Based on the findings of its internal investigation, 3M terminated Olson and Konichek's employment on February 14, 1991.
- The day after the terminations, 3M issued a press release stating that two production employees were terminated and two had resigned following an investigation into harassment allegations.
- The Prairie du Chien Police Department also issued its own press release regarding its investigation into assaults and harassment at the 3M plant.
- No criminal charges were ever filed against Olson or Konichek as a result of the police investigation.
Procedural Posture:
- Phillip Olson and Randal Konichek filed a lawsuit against 3M Company, its plant manager, the City of Prairie du Chien, and several municipal employees in a Wisconsin trial court.
- The complaint alleged claims for defamation, breach of employment contract, and conspiracy.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, dismissing the case.
- The trial court ruled that the statements were substantially true, the municipal defendants had governmental immunity, and the employment was at-will.
- Olson and Konichek, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
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 abuse its conditional privilege to communicate about employee terminations for harassment when it issues a press release to the media in a small town where it is a major employer and the investigation is a matter of public interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Vergeront, J.
No, an employer does not abuse its conditional privilege by issuing such a press release. The court held that 3M possessed a conditional privilege to communicate with its employees about the terminations to protect the common interest of maintaining a harassment-free workplace. The court extended this privilege to communications with the community, reasoning that as a major employer in a small town where rumors about the investigation were widespread, 3M had a legitimate and important interest in protecting its reputation, reassuring the community, and demonstrating that it enforces its anti-harassment policies. The court found no abuse of this privilege because 3M's statements were based on a thorough investigation (thus not made with reckless disregard for the truth), were made for a proper purpose, and were not an excessive publication given the public interest in the matter.
Analysis:
This decision expands the scope of an employer's conditional privilege in defamation law, particularly for large employers in small communities. It establishes that the 'common interest' required for the privilege can extend beyond the employer-employee relationship to include the community at large, especially when public rumors and media interest are involved. This gives employers greater legal protection when making public statements about sensitive internal matters like harassment investigations and employee terminations. The ruling provides a shield for companies aiming to control the public narrative surrounding workplace misconduct, potentially at the expense of the reputational interests of the terminated employees.
