TRT DEVELOPMENT CO.-KC v. Meyers
15 S.W.3d 281, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 1935, 2000 WL 305505 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement that would otherwise be defamatory is protected by a qualified privilege if it is made in good faith on a subject matter in which the speaker and the recipient share a corresponding interest or duty. This privilege is only defeated by a showing of actual malice, meaning the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth.
Facts:
- Valero Refining Company held a corporate event at the Kings Crossing Golf and Country Club.
- Mark Meyers, a Valero employee, was present at the event and entered the club's pro shop after a golf tournament.
- Chad Salerno, a pro shop employee, observed Meyers standing near a shirt display and noticed bulges in Meyers' shorts pockets that were not there previously.
- After Meyers left, Salerno heard hangers rattling and discovered empty shirt hangers where Meyers had been standing.
- Salerno and another employee, Mark McCarthy, followed Meyers to the parking lot and asked to see what was in his pockets, but Meyers ignored them and drove away.
- Wynn Chapman, the general manager of Kings Crossing, was informed of the suspected theft.
- Chapman then met privately with Robert Grimes, Valero's manager of employee relations, and told him that a Valero employee was suspected of stealing shirts from the pro shop.
- Meyers later denied the theft to Valero, stating that the bulges in his pockets were from 'koozies' he had brought to the tournament.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Meyers sued TRT Development Company-KC, Shoreline Operating Company, and Wynn Chapman in trial court for defamation and tortious interference with his employment contract.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found that Wynn Chapman had made defamatory statements about Meyers but had not acted with actual malice.
- The jury awarded Meyers $54,239.50 in lost wages.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict in favor of Meyers.
- TRT Development, Shoreline, and Chapman, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas 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 a qualified privilege apply to statements made by a country club's general manager to a corporate client's manager regarding a suspected theft by one of the client's employees during a company-sponsored event on the club's property?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Dorsey
Yes, a qualified privilege applies to the statements. Slanderous statements are not actionable when made in good faith on a subject where both the author and the recipient have a corresponding interest. Here, Chapman, as the manager of Kings Crossing, had an interest in protecting the club's property and informing his client, Valero, of the incident. Grimes, as Valero’s employee relations manager, had a corresponding interest in the conduct of a Valero employee at a company-sponsored event, which could affect Valero's reputation and its business relationship with Kings Crossing. Because the statements were made to protect this common interest and the jury found no evidence of actual malice (that Chapman knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth), the statements were protected by a qualified privilege and are not legally actionable.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the qualified privilege doctrine in a common business-to-business context. It reinforces that communications between parties with a shared legitimate interest, such as a vendor and a client discussing the conduct of the client's employee, are protected from defamation claims. The decision underscores the high evidentiary burden on a plaintiff to overcome this privilege, requiring proof of actual malice rather than mere falsity or negligence. This precedent offers significant protection for employers and business managers who need to report suspected misconduct without fear of litigation, so long as they act in good faith.
