Opinion ID: 2709717
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Performance Issues”

Text: Both the KSL and FierceTelecom articles reported UTOPIA’s spokesman’s statement that Hogan’s contract was not renewed for “performance issues.” In the KSL article, Winder reported: “Hogan’s contract was not renewed last month by UTOPIA due to ‘performance issues,’ according to UTOPIA board chairman and Midvale City Manager Kane Loader.” App. 132. The FierceTelecom article included a shortened version of that same statement: “UTOPIA decided not to renew Hogan’s contract due to ‘performance issues.’” App. 135. Additionally, the KSL article went on to report a quote from another source: “‘It is a very sad situation,’ noted one UTOPIA vendor. ‘Chris Hogan was a great talent, but in recent months exhibited erratic behavior that ultimately brought him down.’” App. 132. In context, the statements about Hogan’s job performance are not defamatory. First, the vague reference to “performance issues” was raised in a story about the ongoing conflict between UTOPIA and Hogan that led to his termination and the filing of a lawsuit. UTOPIA attributes its decision to terminate Hogan to dissatisfaction with his job performance, while Hogan argues that the real reason he was fired was because he blew the whistle on favoritism and corruption. But, even if UTOPIA had been hiding its true motives, no reasonable reader would take the statement that Hogan was fired for “performance issues” at face value because the context makes clear that the reason for Hogan’s -14- termination is the subject of an ongoing, obviously nasty, employment dispute. And the characterization, moreover, is simply too nonspecific to sustain a defamatory meaning. See, e.g., Einhorn v. LaChance, 823 S.W.2d 405, 411 (Tex. Ct. App. 1992) (holding that saying an employee was fired for reasons relating “solely to work performance” was too nonspecific to be defamatory); see also Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 325 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Einhorn for this proposition); Westfall v. GTE N. Inc., 956 F. Supp. 707, 713 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (same); cf. DeAngelis v. Hill, 847 A.2d 1261, 1269 (N.J. 2004) (“Only if the statement suggested specific factual assertions that could be proven true or false could the statement qualify as actionable defamation.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We reach the same conclusion about the descriptions of “erratic behavior” in the KSL article. It is obvious from the context of the articles that UTOPIA is defending its decision to terminate Hogan because of his job performance; the vague and subjective references are part of the back-and-forth of a contentious dispute that no reasonable reader would take at face value. Because the challenged statements would not convey a defamatory meaning to a reasonable reader, we agree with the district court that the articles’ statements about Hogan’s job performance are not defamatory as a matter of law. 6 6 The defendants contend that the fair report privilege protects the articles’ statements about Hogan’s job performance. See Utah Code § 45-2-3(4). But, (continued...) -15-