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

defendantdamageswill
plaintiffdefendantdamagesverdictpleacorporationoverruled

Related Cases

Moore v. Warren, 250 Va. 421, 463 S.E.2d 459
View Case »
Sutherland v. Kroger Co., 144 W.Va. 673, 110 S.E.2d 716
View Case »
Reese v. Rankin Fite Memorial Hospital, 403 So.2d 158
View Case »
Corthell v. Holmes, 87 Me. 24, 32 A. 715
View Case »
Tibbetts v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 999 A.2d 930, 2010 ME 61
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Warschauser v. Brooklyn Furniture Co., 159 A.D. 81, 144 N.Y.S. 257

Facts

Bessie Warschauser was employed at Frederick Loeser & Co. when George W. Morgan, acting on behalf of the Brooklyn Furniture Company, confronted her about a debt. Morgan threatened her job if she did not pay immediately, and subsequently, after meeting with the store's superintendent, William G. Cooper, Warschauser was informed that her services were no longer required. The complaint alleged that her discharge was a result of the malicious actions of Morgan and the Brooklyn Furniture Company, as she had received no prior complaints about her work.

The plaintiff alleges in her complaint the incorporation of the defendant Brooklyn Furniture Company; the employment by it, as its agent, of the defendant Morgan; the employment by Frederick Loeser & Co. of the defendant Cooper as superintendent; and then makes the following allegations: ‘VIII. That upon information and belief, on or about February 21, 1912, said defendant George W. Morgan, acting under the consent, authority, and direction of the defendant the Brooklyn Furniture Company went to the place of employment of plaintiff at Frederick Loeser & Co.'s store and, laboring under great rage and excitement…’

Issue

Does an action for damages lie against a third person for maliciously inducing or procuring a master to discharge his servant, in the absence of any allegation of fraudulent means used to accomplish that purpose?

Does an action for damages lie against a third person for maliciously inducing or procuring a master to discharge his servant, in the absence of any allegation of fraudulent means used to accomplish that purpose?

Rule

An action lies in behalf of an employee against a person who has maliciously procured the employer to discharge such employee from employment, even if the employment period is not fixed, provided that damage results from the discharge.

In the well-considered case of Chipley v. Atkinson, 23 Fla. 206, 1 South. 934, it was held that an action lies in behalf of an employé against a person who has maliciously procured the employer to discharge such employé from employment, where the period for which the employment was to continue is not certain, if damage result from the discharge even though, from inability to ascertain the amount of the damage, a verdict for nominal damages only should result.

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts presented in the complaint and determined that sufficient allegations were made to support the claim of malicious interference. It noted that Morgan's threats and subsequent actions, which led to Warschauser's discharge, were done with the intent to cause her harm. The court found that the circumstances described allowed for the inference that her employment was lost due to the defendants' malicious actions.

In our judgment sufficient facts are stated so that the court can see that the demurring defendants maliciously induced and procured the discharge of the plaintiff.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment sustaining the demurrer, allowing Warschauser to proceed with her case against the defendants.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the demurrer overruled, with costs, with leave to defendants to withdraw the demurrer and plead anew on payment of such costs.

Who won?

Bessie Warschauser prevailed in the case because the court found that her complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for malicious interference with her employment.

The court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to support a claim for malicious interference with her employment.

You must be