Opinion ID: 2354677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Absence of Justification

Text: While Stehno's failure to produce evidence of a reasonable business expectancy is dispositive of the case, he also failed to adduce substantial evidence on the element of absence of justification. The plaintiff carries the burden of affirmatively showing lack of justification. Nazeri, 860 S.W.2d at 316-17. If the defendant has a legitimate interest, economic or otherwise, in the expectancy the plaintiff seeks to protect, then the plaintiff must show that the defendant employed improper means in seeking to further only his own interests. Id. at 317. Improper means are those that are independently wrongful, such as threats, violence, trespass, defamation, misrepresentation of fact, restraint of trade, or any other wrongful act recognized by statute or the common law. Id. Sprint had an economic interest in controlling who worked on its projects. So important was this interest that Sprint secured the right to reasonably remove any contractor from the project in its contract with Amdocs. No liability arises for interfering with a ... business expectancy if the action complained of was an act which the defendant had a definite legal right to do without any qualification. Cmty. Title Co. v. Roosevelt Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 796 S.W.2d 369, 372 (Mo. banc 1990). [5] As such, Sprint had a valid economic justification for removing Stehno. Even if there is an economic justification for interfering with a business expectancy, the interfering party must not employ improper means. Nazeri, 860 S.W.2d at 317. Stehno suggests that Sprint used improper means to interfere with his business expectancy in that Richert misrepresented that he was high maintenance and a magnet for conflict. He admits, however, that he had conflicts when he worked at Sprint. While Richert's comments do not paint a positive picture of Stehno, satisfying the absence of justification element requires a showing that the defendant interfered with the business expectancy for personal, as opposed to corporate interests. Eggleston v. Phillips, 838 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Mo.App. 1992). There is nothing in the record indicating that Richert displayed any personal animus for Stehno. Rather, she voiced her concerns about him to protect the corporate interests of her employer. Sprint had a legitimate economic interest in choosing who worked on its projects and did not employ improper means in protecting that interest. Stehno failed to produce evidence to the contrary and does not meet his burden of showing absence of justification.