Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321206999/Shirley-Shaheen-v-Wellpoint-Incorporated-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:59:42+00:00

Document:
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ Circuit Judges.
Murakami, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Taylor needed to perform her job.
that after previously using a cubicle not equipped with Clickto-Talk, why the hell is it so important that I move now?
Taylor responded, [I]t f-king is.
to submit a written description of the incident.
what the curse words were.
during the September 11 incident.
not hostile and was not inappropriate.
[sic] when the incident occurred.
Ingle and Lohmeyer opened an investigation into the incident.
overheard or seen anything inappropriate.
Lohmeyer scheduled a meeting with Shaheen.
severity of the situation between her and Taylor.
four times before Shaheen restated that Taylor used the fword.
as the reason for termination.
terminate, or recommended termination for, Taylor.
*2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2011).
defamatory or defamatory per se.
Id., 2011 WL 5325668, at *6.
summary judgment and denied Shaheens motion to compel as moot.
inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v.
Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 929 (4th Cir. 1995).
Chapin v. Greve, 787 F. Supp. 557, 562 (E.D.
Echtenkamp v. Loudon County Pub. Sch., 263 F. Supp.
2d 1043, 1061 (E.D. Va. 2003).
Larimore v. Blaylock, 528 S.E.2d 119, 121 (Va. 2000).
Shaheen, 2011 WL 5325668, at *4.
on Shaheens claims of defamation and defamation per se.
Southeastern Tidewater Opportunity Project, Inc. v.
Bade, 435 S.E.2d 131, 132-33 (Va. 1993).
privilege, and we readily conclude that they are.
Appellants Br. 34, 36 (citing Great Coastal Exp., Inc.
v. Ellington, 334 S.E.2d 846, 853-54 (Va. 1985)).
on the issue of WellPoints alleged malice.
questions when . . . conduct[ing] an investigation.
point and did not hear the end of the conversation.
certain facts supportive of Shaheen's account.
corroboration for Shaheens version of events.
disregard of the plaintiff's rights (emphasis added)); Wirig v.
sources without further investigation (emphasis added)).
conclusion by th[e] elevated [clear and convincing] standard).
in denying her motion to compel as moot.
challenged statements were not defamatory per se.
court erred, any error was harmless.
warranted under the at issue doctrine.
would deny Shaheen access to vital information.
Stonewall Jackson Hosp., 635 F. Supp. 2d 442, 446 (W.D. Va.
counsel as an affirmative defense.
Thus, the at issue doctrine does not apply.
relevant . . . .
some affirmative act for his own benefit).

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

v. 
 v.