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

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

On February 19, 1994, P wrote a letter to the editor of The Charleston Gazette criticizing D's budgetary cut-backs. D officials spoke with P about the letter and cautioned her to consult with them in the future, before airing her views in the press. D states that with P as part of the management team, she had a duty to portray to the public and other staff members that management was united. A few weeks after the letter incident, P was given an evaluation. She was rated by D as 'meets' or 'exceeds' on each of the evaluation categories. The evaluation also noted that P needed to be more supportive of management. P was given a raise after the evaluation. D scheduled a nonpublic meeting to discuss a planned merger or affiliation with St. Francis Health Care Systems, Inc. D invited only specific upper and middle managers to the meeting. The invitation did not include members of the media. P entered the room where the meeting was being held, accompanied by a newspaper reporter. Both P and the newspaper reporter had tape recorders and recorded the meeting. D terminated P several hours after the meeting. P secured per diem employment as a nursing supervisor with Arthur B. Hodges Center, Inc., a geriatric patient nursing home affiliated with D. D learned of the employment and contacted ABHC and informed ABHC that P was also working as a union organizer. ABHC provided no further work for P upon learning of her union activities. P sued D, claiming in part that D tortiously interfered with her business relationship with ABHC. D moved for summary judgment. The circuit court found: 1) that D had authority to control ABHC and therefore D could not be said to interfere with itself; 2) that D furnished truthful information to ABHC; and 3) that even if D was a stranger to ABHC, the information given to ABHC by D regarding P was truthful and therefore an absolute defense. The circuit court granted summary judgment to D on her claim of tortious interference with a business relationship. P appealed.

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

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