This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, a former physician's assistant employed by the Defendant from 1988 to 2000, alleged that the Defendant provided negative and allegedly false employment references to a prospective employer, causing him emotional distress and the loss of a job opportunity. The Plaintiff had signed multiple liability releases during the application process, including one limiting liability to disclosures made in good faith. The Defendant disclosed information about the Plaintiff's work history, which included negative evaluations, leading the prospective employer to rescind the job offer (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Lincoln County: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, finding that the Plaintiff failed to rebut the Defendant's prima facie case of privilege (paras 5, 19).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the Defendant's liability was limited to disclosures made in good faith, that the Defendant abused its conditional privilege by providing false and distorted information, and that the disclosures violated public policy, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and constituted a prima facie tort (paras 7, 11).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the Plaintiff's signed releases unambiguously immunized the Defendant from liability, that the disclosures were truthful and made in good faith, and that the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of abuse of privilege or malice (paras 7-8).
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant abuse its conditional privilege by providing false or distorted information about the Plaintiff's work history?
- Was the Defendant's liability limited to disclosures made in good faith under the terms of the signed releases?
- Did the Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the Defendant's alleged abuse of privilege?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant (para 19).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Alarid and Wechsler JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the Defendant's disclosures were protected by a conditional privilege, which could only be forfeited if abused. The Plaintiff bore the burden of proving abuse, such as malice, falsehoods, or improper purpose. The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the Defendant acted in bad faith or made false statements. The Defendant's responses to the prospective employer's inquiries were truthful and consistent with its duty to provide accurate information, particularly given the public policy favoring full disclosure in employment references. The Plaintiff's arguments regarding delays and differences in the treatment of his evaluation compared to others were insufficient to establish bad faith. The Court concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed, and the Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law (paras 8-18).