Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesappealtrialverdictcorporation
trialverdictmotion

Related Cases

Osborne v. Keeney, 399 S.W.3d 1
View Case »
Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, 565 U.S. 530, 132 S.Ct. 1201, 182 L.Ed.2d 42, 80 USLW 3465, 80 USLW 3466, 80 USLW 4160, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2254, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 133
View Case »
Andersen v. Khanna, 913 N.W.2d 526
View Case »
Spar v. Cha, 907 N.E.2d 974
View Case »
Donze v. General Motors, LLC, 420 S.C. 8, 800 S.E.2d 479
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sindorf v. Jacron Sales Co., Inc., 27 Md.App. 53, 341 A.2d 856

Facts

Jack Sindorf was employed by Jacron Sales Co., Inc. for 18 months before resigning due to disputes over unpaid commissions. After leaving, he was hired by Tool Box Corporation. Jacron's president, John Langton, contacted Robert Fridkis, a vice president at Jacron, to discuss Sindorf's employment and to express concerns about discrepancies in Sindorf's sales practices. Fridkis then communicated this information to Tool Box's president, which led to Sindorf filing a slander action against Jacron after being informed of the conversation.

Sindorf was employed by the Pennsylvania Jacron for 18 months as a salesman. He resigned on 23 July 1973 because of a dispute over certain sales made by him and commissions he believed due him.

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting a directed verdict in favor of Jacron Sales Co., Inc. despite evidence suggesting actual malice in the employer's communication about Sindorf?

Did the trial judge err in granting the motion for a directed verdict made by Jacron at the close of all the evidence?

Rule

A conditional privilege exists for employers to communicate about former employees to prospective employers, but this privilege can be lost if the communication is made with actual malice.

A conditional privilege exists for employers to communicate about former employees to prospective employers, but this privilege can be lost if the communication is made with actual malice.

Analysis

The court determined that while Jacron had a conditional privilege to communicate about Sindorf, the evidence presented by Sindorf suggested that Fridkis's statements contained actual malice. The court noted that Fridkis's assertion that Sindorf was fired, when he had actually resigned, could be interpreted as a reckless disregard for the truth, thus allowing the jury to consider whether the privilege was abused.

We believe that the evidence, when viewed as required by the rule pertaining to the grant vel non of a directed verdict, led to conclusions from which reasonable minds could differ.

Conclusion

The Court of Special Appeals reversed the directed verdict in favor of Jacron and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Sindorf to pursue his claim for damages.

Reversed and remanded.

Who won?

Jack Sindorf prevailed in the appeal because the court found sufficient evidence of actual malice that could defeat the employer's conditional privilege.

Sindorf prevailed because the court found that the evidence was sufficient to show actual malice, allowing him to recover despite the conditional privilege.

You must be