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

Heading: Abuse of Conditional Privilege

Text: Under Puerto Rico law, communications among managers or supervisors of a discharged employee, regarding the reasons for the discharge, are conditionally privileged. Porto, 132 D.P.R. 331. This privilege applies to `all bona fide communications upon any subject matter in which the author has an interest or with respect to which he has a duty to perform to others.' Id. (quoting Caraballo v. P.R. Ilustrado, Inc., 70 P.R.R. 265, 272 (1949)). It is `termed conditional because the person availing himself of it must use it in a lawful manner and for a proper purpose.' Id. (quoting Caraballo, 70 P.R.R. at 272). Accordingly, the privilege is lost if the employer abuses it by giving the statement excessive publicity or by publishing it for improper reasons. [19] Id. Although there are no Puerto Rico cases directly on point, case law from other jurisdictions suggests that improper reasons are established and the conditional privilege destroyed where an employer is on notice that the defamatory statements are of questionable validity and yet, with reckless disregard for the truth, fails to adequately investigate their veracity. See, e.g., A.B.C. Needlecraft Co. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 245 F.2d 775, 777 (2d Cir.1957) (holding that evidence was sufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury as to whether privilege had been abused when defendant's defamatory statement was based on a misunderstood casual remark, with no effort to verify facts, though to have done so would have been a simple matter); Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 234 Conn. 1, 662 A.2d 89, 104 (1995) (conditional privilege destroyed where defendants failed to investigate or retract the statement even after the plaintiff notified them that the statement was false and requested further review); Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 461 N.W.2d 374, 380-81 (Minn.1990) (conditional privilege destroyed where an employer . . . takes no steps to investigate but relies entirely on accusations either made by employees who may be biased or on second-hand hearsay with no identification of sources); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 600 (1977) (conditional privilege fails if statement made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to its truth). In this case, the ten defamatory statements made by FedEx were clearly within the scope of the conditional privilege as communications regarding the discharge of an employee. The jury made this finding on the special verdict form, and it has not been challenged on appeal. FedEx contends, however, that Soto did not meet his burden of demonstrating that FedEx had abused the privilege. FedEx cites Cabrero Muñiz v. Zayas Seijo, 2006 WL 1313775 (P.R.2006), [20] for the proposition that bad investigation allows an inference [of] real malice only in exceptional circumstances and with the benefit of other evidence tending to show such malice. That case concerned the actual malice requirement in the context of defamation of a public figure, not an inquiry into abuse of the conditional privilege. However, even if we were to conclude that the same standard applies to determine improper motive in the privilege inquiry, the jury was entitled to infer that the circumstances here were sufficiently exceptional to allow liability to attach. The jury heard evidence from which it could reasonably conclude that FedEx was on notice of the questionable validity of the cocaine allegations as early as June 6, when Soto called Pérez and Medina to report that Iris Romero had received the package without incident. FedEx insisted at trial that Soto was dismissed for his violation of the employee shipping policy, not for shipping drugs. As a result, no investigation of the drug allegations was required. However, regardless of the reasons behind the dismissal, once FedEx was on notice that the drug allegations were questionable, it was obligated to either stop repeating them or adequately investigate them. It did neither. As a result, the jury was entitled to conclude that FedEx had improper motives and thereby lost the benefit of the conditional privilege because it acted with reckless disregard for the truth. [21]