Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01471/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01471-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 

---

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MARIE PLUMLEE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 

EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO COUNCIL #214, LOCAL 

916; RICK COOK; CAROLS. HANNABASS; 

SANDRA JAMES; RICK JAMES, also known 

as Rick Jaynes, 

v. 

Defendants-Third-partyplaintiffs-Appellees, 

-JAMES A. BLUE, 

Third-party-defendantAppellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 87-1471 

) (D.c~ No. 84-3384-E) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of tne law of the 

case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 87-1471 Document: 01019964404 Date Filed: 02/15/1990 Page: 1 
• 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordeied 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff appeals a district court order granting defendants' 

motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Oklahoma law claims for 

libel. Plaintiff, a civilian supervisor at Tinker Air Force Base, 

asserted defendants injured plaintiff through the libelous 

contents of a letter produced by defendants in the course of a 

grievance proceeding challenging the termination of the employment 

of one of the employees under plaintiff's supervision. The 

district court ruled the letter was a privileged communication 

under Oklahoma law and was, therefore, not punishable as libel. 

This court will review a district court's summary judgment 

determination de nova, viewing the · record in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party. Ewing v. Amoco Oil Co., 823 

F.2d 1432, 1437 (10th Cir. 1987). Summary judgment is appropriate 

only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

Both parties assert Oklahoma law is applicable to the instant. 

action. Oklahoma law defines libel as "a false or malicious 

unprivileged publication by writing ... which exposes any person 

to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to 

deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his 

occupation. . " Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1441. A privileged 

communication, not punishable as libel, is defined as, among 

other things, a communication made in "any legislative or judicial 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1471 Document: 01019964404 Date Filed: 02/15/1990 Page: 2 
• 

proceeding or any other proceeding authorized by law." 

Stat. tit. 12, § 1443.1. 

Okla. 

Defendants produced the allegedly libelous letter during the 

course of grievance proceedings before the Merit Systems 

Protection Board, as provided under 12 U.S.C. §§ 7121, 7701. 

These proceedings, therefore, were authorized by law. See White 

v. Basnett, 700 P.2d 666, 667 (Okla. Ct. App~ 1985)(complaint 

filed by citizen against police officers pursuant to departmental 

complaint procedures was proceeding authorized by law); cf. 

Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Adams, 168 P.2d 105, 106 (Okla. 

1946)(under similar language of prior Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1443, 

administrative proceedings before State Industrial Commission were 

proceedings authorized by law). 

On appeal, plaintiff argues the district court erred in 

granting defendants' motion for summary judgment because there 

remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether 

defendants, in producing the letter, acted with malice. Where a 

communication is made in a proceeding authorized under law, 

however, that communication will be absolutely privileged. See 

Hennessee v. Mathis, 737 P.2d 958, 961 (Okla. Ct. App. 1987); 

White, 700 P.2d at 668; cf. Adams, 168 P.2d at 106-07. Issues 

addressing motive, malice, bad faith, or the truth of the 

communication are irrelevant. Cf. Adams, 168 P.2d at 107; 

Hammett v. Hunter, 117 P.2d 511, 513 (Okla. 194l)(applying similar 

language of prior Oklahoma law, including Okla. Stat. tit. 12, 

§ 1443, and common law principles of privilege). 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1471 Document: 01019964404 Date Filed: 02/15/1990 Page: 3 
• 

The question of whether a communication is absolutely 

privileged under Oklahoma law is a legal determination, 

appropriate for resolution on a motion for summary judgment. See, 

~, Crittendon v. Combined Communications Corp., 714 P.2d 1026, 

1028 (Okla. 1985); White, 700 P.2d at 668. The district court did 

not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-1471 Document: 01019964404 Date Filed: 02/15/1990 Page: 4