Sullivan v. Baptist Memorial Hospital
995 S.W.2d 569, 1999 Tenn. LEXIS 352, 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1426 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's repetition of a former employer's allegedly defamatory reason for termination to a prospective employer does not satisfy the "publication" element of a defamation claim. The doctrine of compelled self-publication is not recognized in Tennessee.
Facts:
- Karen Sullivan worked as a neonatal nurse for Baptist Memorial Hospital (“Baptist”).
- While Sullivan was employed by Baptist, she also did temporary work for a competing hospital, St. Francis, which was establishing a new neonatal unit.
- Baptist grew suspicious that its nurses were taking medical devices to assist St. Francis.
- A co-worker, Susan Parsons, told Sullivan's supervisor that Sullivan had taken neonatal IV catheters from Baptist to use at St. Francis and later claimed Sullivan had confessed this to her.
- When Baptist management confronted Sullivan with the accusation, she denied taking any property.
- Despite her denial, Baptist terminated Sullivan for misappropriating hospital property.
- Following her termination, Sullivan applied for nursing positions at other hospitals.
- During her job search, Sullivan disclosed Baptist's stated reason for her termination to prospective employers.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Sullivan filed a defamation lawsuit against Baptist Memorial Hospital in a Tennessee circuit court (trial court).
- Baptist filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it had not published the allegedly defamatory information.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Baptist, holding that self-published statements are not actionable under Tennessee law.
- Sullivan, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, adopting the doctrine of compelled self-publication in the employment context.
- Baptist, as appellant, was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
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 employee's compelled repetition of a former employer's defamatory reason for termination to a prospective employer satisfy the publication element required for a defamation cause of action?
Opinions:
Majority - Anderson, C.J.
No. An employee's compelled repetition of a former employer's reason for termination does not satisfy the publication element essential to a prima facie case of defamation. The court rejected the minority view of 'compelled self-publication,' holding that it is contrary to long-standing Tennessee precedent, the majority rule in other jurisdictions, and important public policy principles. The court reasoned that adopting this doctrine would chill workplace communication, conflict with Tennessee's employment-at-will doctrine by creating a de facto duty to investigate before termination, and allow plaintiffs to control the statute of limitations by creating a new cause of action with each job application. Furthermore, it would be inconsistent with a state statute providing qualified immunity to employers for job-related communications, which requires a higher standard than mere negligence to establish liability.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Tennessee's position within the majority of jurisdictions that reject the compelled self-publication doctrine. It reinforces the strength of the employment-at-will doctrine by refusing to impose an indirect duty on employers to investigate the reasons for termination, prioritizing the finality of the employment relationship. The ruling creates a significant barrier for terminated employees in defamation claims where the employer's statements were only communicated to the employee, who then repeated them. The court's policy analysis emphasizes protecting open communication in the workplace and limiting the scope of defamation liability, even at the cost of providing a remedy for employees in Sullivan's position.
