Opinion ID: 203443
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence on Actual Harm

Text: FedEx also asserts that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the libel claim because Soto failed to prove that he suffered emotional distress as a result of the publication of the libelous statements, rather than merely as a result of reading those statements himself. We reject this assertion. The jury could have reasonably inferred that Soto's reputation within FedEx was harmed by the connection between his name and the drug allegations. See Porto, 132 D.P.R. 331 ([C]orporate employees are only too human and when they learn of a defamatory statement the reputation of the affected employee is clearly demeaned in the workplace.). Moreover, Soto did present evidence about the shame and humiliation he experienced as a direct result of knowing that the drug allegations were circulating among FedEx management. He explained, for example, that when he received the letter from Senior Vice President Colomba: [L]ife came to an end for me because having a V.P. of the company state that I had sent drugs, cocaine. . . . My world came to an end, fell on me. No more is required to sustain the jury's finding of liability on the libel claim. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) (describing customary types of actual harm inflicted by defamatory falsehood [to] include impairment of reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering); Fiori v. Truck Drivers, Local 170, 354 F.3d 84, 87 (1st Cir.2004) (noting that emotional distress need be no more than `outrage' and `anger' upon seeing the libelous statements, since mental distress is the `natural result' of libel (quoting Shafir v. Steele, 431 Mass. 365, 727 N.E.2d 1140, 1146 (2000))). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of FedEx's motion for judgment as a matter of law on that claim.