RAMON R. SILVEIRA, APPELLANT,
v.
AIRCRAFT CASTING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Ramon Silveira appealed a summary judgment dismissing his libel action against his former employer, Aircraft Casting, Inc., based on a written discharge notice. The court affirmed, holding that the discharge notice was a qualifiedly privileged communication and that summary judgment was appropriate.
The discharge notice was a qualifiedly privileged publication, and summary judgment was properly entered. The employee was officially in the employ of the defendant at the time of discharge because he never tendered formal written notice of resignation, and the limited distribution of the discharge notice among relevant parties made it privileged communication.
[1] A written notice of discharge containing reasons for termination is a qualifiedly privileged publication in a libel action.
[2] A plaintiff's failure to follow established grievance procedures to challenge a dismissal may preclude a libel action based on the discharge notice.
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“For disloyalty to the company, and working against the best interests of all employees, you are hereby discharged.”
The exact language of the discharge notice that formed the basis of the libel claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSilveira, a union member employed in the defendant's steel casting inspection department, was discharged on September 11, 1972, via a written notice s…
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 Qualified Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant seeks review of an adverse final summary judgment in an action for libel.
Plaintiff filed an action for libel against the defendant, his former employer. In his amended complaint plaintiff alleged he, a union member, was employed by the defendant in its steel casting inspection department and that on or about September 11, 1972, he was given a written notice of discharge which read as follows:
“For disloyalty to the company, and working against the best interests of all employees, you are hereby discharged.”
At the time of the discharge, the only others present besides the plaintiff was the union’s chief steward who also received a copy of the notice of discharge and two employees in the defendant’s personnel department. The notice was not posted and the remaining two copies thereof were filed away promptly in locked cabinets.
Defendant-appellee moved for summary judgment and after extensive discovery and a hearing thereon, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee.
On appeal, appellant basically contends that the trial court erred in entering summary final judgment for the defendant where there was allegedly evidence before the court that plaintiff had resigned before the discharge notice was issued, thus raising the question of unprivileged communication sufficient to be submitted to a jury. We cannot agree.
A search of the record reveals that plaintiff-appellant never tendered formal written notice of resignation. At the most, the record supports that plaintiff had entertained the idea of resigning a day or two before his official discharge, but informed the union steward that anyone who believed he had resigned was mistaken. Hence, appellant was officially in the employ of defendant at the time of discharge. We also noted that plaintiff-appellant failed to follow the established grievance procedure to challenge his dismissal and instead choose to bring this action for libel.
Thus, we find the notice of discharge hereinabove to be a qualifiedly privileged publication and, therefore, affirm the judgment, herein appealed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co., Inc., 346 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…, defamatory or otherwise, concerning either. That communication was a demand for explanation concerning appellants’ alleged joint actions. See Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Inc., 66 So. 2d 495 (Fla.1953); Silveira v. Aircraft Casting, Inc., 291 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). We need not determine whether words spoken to appellants by a manager in the presence of an assistant brewmaster constituted a publication to the assistant or whether that communication was privileged. See Drennen v. Westinghouse…