Public policy exceptions to the at-will doctrine prohibit employers from engaging in discriminatory practices. The sexual harassment and wrongful discharge claims alleged in the former employee's complaint represent a continuous pattern of conduct that began before the prior acts date. When Continental's insurance policy with Schultze is compared with the allegations in his former employee's complaint against him, we conclude the sexual discrimination and wrongful discharge claims began before the prior acts date and Continental ordinarily would not be required to defend Schultze against those claims. Schultze argues his former employee's complaint includes two different defamation claims with different sources, and both defamations could have occurred after the prior acts date of January 23, 1998. Under North Dakota law, every person has a right of protection from defamation.
Defamation is classified as either libel or slander.
Actionable defamation requires publication, which necessitates communication of the alleged defamatory matter to a third person. See Emo v. Milbank Mut. Although Schultze and his former employee may have had a prior relationship that began before the prior acts date, the employee's complaint alleges Schultze falsely accused her of embezzlement on November 17, 1998. We resolve any doubt about an insurer's duty to defend in favor of the insured. Viewed in that framework, we believe any defamatory statements by Schultze were allegedly published after the prior acts date and are distinct from, and not necessarily a continuation of, Schultze's unwanted sexual advances or sexual harassment.