In the Interest of K. L.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an employer’s oral statements to, the plaintiffs co-workers concerning the reasons for the plaintiffs termination were defamatory per se, but considering whether they were protected by the qualified privilege
• noting that the statements that the plaintiff was “evasive, secretive, dishonest, dishonorable, and perhaps even a criminal” were defamatory per se
• refusing to consider a claim of wrongful discharge \absent some clear mandate\ or duty which the employee himself \actually could be held responsible\ for breaching
• refusing to consider a claim of wrongful discharge “absent some clear mandate” or duty which the employee himself “actually could be held responsible” for breaching
• finding manager’s statements at firm-wide meeting inferring that plaintiff “was evasive, secretive, dishonest, dishonorable, and perhaps even a criminal” amounted to defamation per se
• “awarding damages based on [the presumption of harm to reputation] in a constitutional malice case” is permissible

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).