Ky. COA Affirms Dismissal Of Defamation Claim That Arose In The Context Of A Labor Dispute

Employee defamation claims against employers have gained traction over the last few years.   That progress was slowed yesterday in Gilliam v. Pikeville United Methodist Hospital of Kentucky, Inc. & Danny Briscoe (To Be Published) where the Ky. COA affirmed a summary judgment dismissing Gilliam's defamation claims against the Hospital and Briscoe on the ground that Gilliam could not establish the requisite damages.

The case arose in the context of a labor dispute.  After an anonymous flier was put out during contract negotiations, the Hospital requested Briscoe prepare a response, which he did.  The response referred to the attendance problems of a member of the Union's bargaining committee and contained the statement, "This kind of abuse must be stopped. It is not fair to all of the hard working people at this Hospital that arrive on time every day. This abuse often requires employees to work beyond their shift to cover for the person that is late."  The response was the basis of Gilliam's defamation claims.

The Pike Circuit Court granted Defendants' Summary Judgment motion.  In affirming the dismissal, the COA noted the four elements of a defamation action: (1) defamatory language, (2) about the Plaintiff, (3) which is published, and (4) which causes injury to reputation.  The Court also stated that "[b]ecause the particular defamation claim now before us occurred in the context of a labor dispute, Gilliam must also prove a fifth element of 'actual malice.'"

In addressing the damages element, the COA stated "because the statements in question allege the conduct of habitual tardiness, which is incompatible with the employee's trade or profession, these statements would be defamatory per se in the normal defamation case under state law."  However, citing federal law, the COA continued and stated, "because the statements occurred in the context of a labor dispute," Gilliam must prove actual damages.  The Court stated,

Therefore, a plaintiff who endures even malicious libel during a labor dispute must present evidence of harm from defamation in order to recover, notwithstanding the fact that damages might otherwise be presumed under state law.

The COA affirmed the dismissal of Gilliam's claims because he could not meet this standard.  One final note, the Court also refused to consider a post-deposition affidavit submitted by Gilliam to prove damages because it contradicted his earlier deposition testimony.  To read the decision, click: Download Gilliam21706.pdf