Carter v. Willert Home Products, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that in order to overcome qualified immunity, plaintiff has the burden to show actual malice
• holding that an employer is liable for the defamatory statement of an employee if the employee was in the scope and course of employment when publication of the statement occurred
• holding that in order for an employer to be liable for libelous statements made by an employee, the employee must be within scope and course of employment when publication of statements occurred
• holding that “good faith” goes to a determination of malice
• affirming the denial of employer’s motion for directed verdict because a jury could reasonably find the employee’s “statements were intended to be in furtherance of the discharge of her assigned tasks, and not a means of requiting any personal feelings of antipathy toward plaintiff.”
• plaintiff recovered where, after applying for credit, employer's agent falsely stated that plaintiff had credit complaints, judgments and garnishments against her, was in disciplinary layoff and would probably be fired

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).