The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was hired by Giancola (D), a division manager, as a sales representative for D. P was promoted to division manager in June 1989. As division manager, P often kept incentive items in his garage for distribution to his sales representatives. In July 1989, P was demoted for reasons unrelated to this appeal, and Giancola (D) again became P's immediate supervisor when he resumed P's former position of division manager. On November 20, 1989, P was discharged by Giancola (D) for 'falsification and selling incentive items.' The falsification allegation was based upon P's alleged failure to report a change in his work schedule on his daily activity report (DAR) on two separate occasions. The allegation of selling incentive items was based upon Brock's, Robinson's (D), and Jim Lumbattis's written statements to Giancola (D), wherein they alleged they saw Marlboro belt buckles (a Philip Morris incentive item) offered for sale at a yard sale at P's home in August 1988. P filed a complaint against Ds, claiming wrongful discharge and defamation based upon Brock's (D) and Robinson's (D) written statements. P knew that selling D incentive items would result in discharge. P denied that he sold Marlboro belt buckles at a yard sale in August 1988 and explained that he was in an all-day sales meeting that day in the company of Brock (D), Robinson (D), and Lumbattis. P admitted that, to his knowledge, no potential employer was told by D that he was discharged or the reasons for his discharge. Hope Gibson, P's wife, testified that she knew that selling incentive items, such as Marlboro belt buckles, was grounds for discharge. Hope denied that she sold or offered for sale Marlboro belt buckles at any yard sale she conducted. Helen Ryterski, P's neighbor, who participated in the yard sale with Hope, corroborated Hope's testimony. Hope stated she held her yard sales when P was gone because P did not want anything to do with the yard sales. On November 2, 1989, Giancola (D) asked Brock (D), Robinson (D), and Lumbattis to make written statements about what they saw at P's yard sale and told them that the statements would be confidential. Giancola (D) did not ask P for an explanation about the yard sale but only asked P if he had a yard sale, which P denied. Brock (D), Robinson (D), and Lumbattis corroborated that they gave written statements to Giancola (D) on November 2, 1989. All three testified that they were with P the entire day of the yard sale and that they saw the yard sale when they went to P's home after a sales meeting. None of the written statements given established that an actual sale of the belt buckles transpired or that P participated in the yard sale. The trial court ruled against P on his wrongful discharge cause of action but ruled for him on his defamation cause of action and awarded $15,000 for lost wages, $100,000 for lost benefits at $20,000 per year for five years, $100,000 for personal humiliation, mental anguish, and suffering, and $1,000,000 for punitive damages. Ds appealed.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.