Stanbury V. Littman And Signal Construction Case
1. What was the legal issue? What did the court decide? This case is based upon Mr. Stanbury, who worked as a project manager for Signal Construction from 1984 to 1985, and was fired allegedly because he was "not doing his job properly," according to Signal's personnel manager. But nevertheless, the termination reason that Signal informed Mr. Stanbury was due to "lack or reduction in work". Mr. Stanbury took legal action against Signal Construction for defamation. This is because he claims that a manager of Signal Construction (who had never observed, monitored, evaluated or read an evaluation of his) gave a derogatory statements reference to a possible future employer. The legal issue to be discussed here is to establish whether
…show more content…
• The declaration is made verbally or in writing.
• The declaration is a threat to the reputation of the plaintiff.
3. Why was the company not shielded by “qualified privilege” in this case? A firm can lose the protection under the "qualified privilege" if the plaintiff can prove one of the following points: that there was malicious intent with the motive to harm his/her reputation, that the statement was given with reckless disregard for the truth, or the publication of the statement was overly broad. (P.152) In this case Mr. Stanbury was able to prove that Littman and Signal have abused their qualified privilege under Virginia law for the following reasons:
• Littman and Stanbury's testimonies, confirming the fact that Littman never supervised, worked, evaluated, nor read any evaluation of Mr. Stanbury.
• Littman's testimony, which indicates that he did not receive information from anyone who has worked or had a work-related relationship with Mr. Stanbury. His information were observations and rumors in the company’s hall with thirds parties.
• Littman's admission where he admits that he has no evidence to substantiate any of his statements to Jane and that he never verified the information before the
• The declaration is made verbally or in writing.
• The declaration is a threat to the reputation of the plaintiff.
3. Why was the company not shielded by “qualified privilege” in this case? A firm can lose the protection under the "qualified privilege" if the plaintiff can prove one of the following points: that there was malicious intent with the motive to harm his/her reputation, that the statement was given with reckless disregard for the truth, or the publication of the statement was overly broad. (P.152) In this case Mr. Stanbury was able to prove that Littman and Signal have abused their qualified privilege under Virginia law for the following reasons:
• Littman and Stanbury's testimonies, confirming the fact that Littman never supervised, worked, evaluated, nor read any evaluation of Mr. Stanbury.
• Littman's testimony, which indicates that he did not receive information from anyone who has worked or had a work-related relationship with Mr. Stanbury. His information were observations and rumors in the company’s hall with thirds parties.
• Littman's admission where he admits that he has no evidence to substantiate any of his statements to Jane and that he never verified the information before the