The Georgia Court of Appeals recently had to determine if a defamation suit which alleged that a reporter published a plaintiff’s poor job performance should survive summary judgment. The court found that it should, since a jury could find that there was defamation.
In Gettner v. Fitzgerald, the plaintiff, Gettner, sued VNU Business Media, Inc. for defamation, because of a publication by VNU in which it was revealed that Gettner had been demoted based on poor performance. Gettner also sued his former employer, Fitzgerald & Company, for invasion of privacy, because the CEO told VNU about the nature of the demotion. Gettner claimed that he had been promoted to Executive Creative Director in 2001, but that he did not like dealing with subordinates. As a result, the company allowed him to return to his prior position as Group Creative Director in 2002. His company disputed this, and it claimed that he had been demoted due to poor performance. The company further argued that the company agreed to make it seem that it was Gettner’s decision in order for Gettner to save face. The form given to human resources showed that he had “stepped down.” The company even sent an email to its employees which gave a similar reason.
A reporter with Adweek investigated into the matter. The CEO of Fitzgerald told the reporter that Gettner lacked the qualities of an Executive Creative Director, but he also asked the reporter not to publish that information. In 2003, Fitzgerald had layoffs and let go Gettner. Adweek then released its annual report card for advertising agencies, and it gave Fitzgerald a “C” for management. The report explained this was due to Gettner’s poor performance. When Gettner confronted the reporter, she allegedly claimed to have known that Gettner stepped down voluntarily. Gettner then sued. The trial court granted motions for summary judgment in favor of both VNU and Fitzgerald.
The appellate court examined the four elements that make up defamation. First, the statement must be about the plaintiff. It was obvious that the statement was about Gettner. However, VNU argued it was only an opinion and not a statement of fact, but the court reasoned that the statement in question could be proven false which would make it not an opinion. Second, defamation requires that the statement made was false. Since Gettner put forth evidence that it was false, a jury could find that it was false. Third, the plaintiff must show that it was the defendant’s fault in publishing the statement. The court found that the reporter could have conducted a more thorough investigation, because she failed to verify the information with Gettner and others. Finally, the plaintiff must show some actual injury. VNU did not dispute this element. Thus, the summary judgment in favor of VNU was improper, and the appellate court’s decision will allow a jury to hear the decision.
Pate & Brody is an accomplished Georgia law firm with offices in Atlanta, Macon and Madison. Our lawyers are dedicated to pursuing justice for crime victims and people who have been defrauded by deceptive business practices or injured through the fault of others. Our lawyers have been recognized on the list of Georgia's "Super Lawyers", and included among Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend Magazine.
