 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Meades v. Wilmington Housing Authority5/12/2005
Submitted: February 18, 2005
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
This 12th day of May 2005, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The pro se appellant, Timothy J. Meades, Sr., was employed as a district supervisor with appellee, Wilmington Housing Authority (WHA). On May 3, 2001, WHA fired Meades. An arbitrator later determined that WHA had just cause to terminate Meades' employment.
(2) In July 2002, Meades filed an action to vacate the arbitration award. By opinion issued on March 6, 2003, the Court of Chancery granted WHA's motion for judgment on the pleadings and upheld the award.
(3) On May 2, 2003, Meades filed a complaint in the Superior Court. Meades alleged that WHA had wrongfully terminated him and had falsely accused him of mishandling WHA funds and misappropriating WHA property. Meades sought a judgment against WHA for "wrongful termination, loss of wages, loss of benefits, defamation of character, emotional distress and punitive damages." WHA filed a motion to dismiss.
(4) At a hearing on WHA's motion to dismiss on November 24, 2003, the Superior Court ruled that Meades' wrongful termination claim was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. The Superior Court granted Meades 30 days to file an amended complaint setting forth the details of his defamation claim.
(5) In an amended complaint filed on December 23, 2003, Meades again alleged that WHA had falsely accused him of having mishandled WHA funds and misappropriated WHA property. Specifically, Meades claimed that WHA defamed him in (a) a written communication that was distributed to persons involved in the termination process; (b) statements that were directed to the Wilmington Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and (c) statements that were directed to WHA staff and residents and to Meades' family and friends.
(6) WHA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Meades filed an answer in opposition to the motion, and the Superior Court held a hearing.
(7) By memorandum opinion dated July 30, 2004, the Superior Court granted WHA's motion and dismissed Meades' complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Superior Court determined that WHA's communications, specifically to those involved in Meades' termination and to law enforcement personnel, were protected by conditional privilege that WHA had not waived or forfeited. With respect to the other communications that WHA allegedly made to its staff and residents and to Meades' friends and family, the Superior Court determined that the amended complaint failed to make sufficient allegations of fact to support a claim of defamation.
(8) The Court reviews de novo the Superior Court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim.
A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where it appears with reasonable certainty that the plaintiff could not prove any set of facts that would entitle him to relief. The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
(9) In Delaware, a communication is defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower the person in the estimation of the community or to deter others from associating or dealing with the person. For statements made in certain contexts, however, conditional privilege is an affirmative defense to a prima facie case of defamation.
(10) The defamation alleged in this case, i.e.,
Page 1 2 Delaware Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|