Opinion ID: 203443
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Inadequate Investigation

Text: Soto points to the inadequacy of the investigation as another aspect of FedEx's outrageous conduct: FedEx did little or nothing to obtain the facts, apparently preferring to avoid the truth in favor of a lie. The inadequacy of FedEx's investigation to support the allegation that Soto's package contained drugs is unmistakable, and that inadequacy remains a troubling aspect of this case. Soto emphasized that inadequacy as a key element of his argument that FedEx's termination of him was wrongful and, as we describe below, that FedEx had abused its conditional privilege to publish statements about an employee. However, the inadequate investigation is not conduct on the part of FedEx that caused harm to Soto independent of the harms caused by the termination itself and the publication of the libelous statements. The harm arising from the termination is, as we explained above, compensable only under Act 80, and cannot factor into our analysis of IIED. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 185a; Vélez Rodriguez v. Pueblo Int'l, Inc., 135 D.P.R. 500, 1994 P.R.-Eng. 909576 (P.R.1994) (The compensation provided by law is the exclusive remedy for unjust discharge.). Similarly, Soto's emotional distress arising from defamatory statements published by the company must be analyzed under the framework of libel law.