HUGH DAVID BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
COMAIR, INC., AND T. JACK GOODNER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Hugh Brown, a Comair pilot, appealed a summary judgment dismissing his defamation claim against Comair and T. Jack Goodner based on letters of suspension. The court affirmed, holding that the suspension letters were absolutely privileged communications made in relation to the collective bargaining grievance process.
The court held that the suspension letters were absolutely privileged because they were relevant to the grievance proceeding under the collective bargaining agreement. The absolute privilege applies to any statement that has 'some relation' to the grievance proceeding, and the suspension letters qualified because they were sent pursuant to and in compliance with the collective bargaining agreement's terms.
[1] Statements made in connection with a labor grievance proceeding are absolutely privileged if they are relevant to the proceeding.
[2] Relevancy for purposes of absolute privilege in labor grievance proceedings is broadly defined to include any statement with some relation to the proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In order to be absolutely privileged, a statement need only be relevant to the labor grievance proceedings.”
Establishes the legal standard for absolute privilege in labor dispute communications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown was employed as a pilot by Comair and was suspended for one month without pay following an incident during flight. T. Jack Goodner, apparently a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Absolute Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Hugh Brown appeals the trial court’s final order entering summary judgment in favor of Comair, Inc. and T. Jack Goodner on Brown’s suit for defamation. Finding that the undisputed evidence of record establishes that the publications which form the basis of Brown’s defamation claim are absolutely privileged, we affirm.
Brown is employed by Comair as a pilot. Brown’s complaint alleged that Comair suspended his employment for a month without pay based upon an incident which occurred during flight. Brown’s defamation complaint is based upon letters of suspension drafted by Goodner which, according to Brown, falsely recounted the events which precipitated his suspension. Brown admitted that the letters of suspension were provided to him pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement which covers the pilots at Comair. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the statements contained in the letters of suspension, even if defamatory, were absolutely privileged based upon Hope v. Nat'l Alliance of Postal & Fed. Employees, 649 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We agree.
In order to be absolutely privileged, a statement need only be relevant to the labor grievance proceedings. Hope, 649 So. 2d at 900 (citing Bell v. Gellert, 469 So. 2d 141, 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)). Relevancy is broadly defined to include any statement which has “some relation” to the grievance proceeding. Id. at 901 (citing to Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla.1994)).
Brown contends that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against him because the record contains genuine issues of material fact as to whether the alleged defamatory statements were made during, or in relation to, a grievance proceeding. To support the claim, Brown asserts that since the statements were published a month before he filed a grievance they were not made within the context of a grievance proceedings. However, it is undisputed that the letters of suspension were sent pursuant to, and in compliance with, the terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the alleged defamatory statements contained within those letters were “relevant” to the grievance proceeding and thus entitled to absolute immunity. Hope. See also Hasten v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 640 F. 2d 274 (10th Cir.1981) (holding that because a discharge letter was a step required in the grievance machinery, the contents of the letter were subject to absolute privilege).
AFFIRMED.
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Levin v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994)
- Hope v. Nat'l Alliance OF Postal & Fed. Emps., 649 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Hasten v. Phillips Petroleum Co. & Am. Stevedoring Corp., 640 F.2d 274 (10th Cir. 1981)
- Bell v. Gellert, 469 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)