Does HR defame an employee when it talks about him, and his alleged actions, while investigating a workplace altercation? A Florida court of appeals recently considered that question.

What happened. Arthur Geddes had been working as a mechanic for American Airlines for 20 years when, in June of 2001, friction developed among the mechanics about the storage of mechanics' personal computers, which they used in their off-time, specifically as to whether there was enough room for all of them in a storage closet. The friction developed into an argument between Geddes and another mechanic, Ernest Suarez, who told managers that Geddes, holding a metal bar, threatened to cut out Suarez's intestines. The company suspended Geddes pending an investigation.

During the investigation, HR interviewed potential witnesses to the confrontation. In the end, Geddes was suspended. But after some of the other mechanics began asking how American was resolving the situation, an HR manager talked with them--but without stating particulars that would violate confidentiality. Geddes sued American for defamation, claiming that HR defamed him by repeating Suarez's statement to other managers and employees and by refusing to silence the rumors going around. The issue went to a jury, which awarded Geddes $100,000. American appealed.

What the court said. To make a good case of defamation, a plaintiff must show that the defendant "published" false and defamatory statements about him, without reasonable care as to whether they were true or false, and that the plaintiff was damaged as a result. In this context, "published" means communicated to a third person.

The court found that managers' statements to one another regarding the situation weren't published because when the entity alleged to have committed the defamation is a corporation, statements made to executives or managers are, in effect, being made to the corporation itself, and so they're not "published." As for the statements among co-workers, the court found they were conditionally privileged: Statements are conditionally privileged if they're made by one who has a duty toward, or interest in, the subject matter, and makes the statement to another with a similar duty or interest. Employees who were witnesses to the altercation were privileged to talk about it as part of the company's investigation.

Others who asked about the reason for Geddes' suspension were privileged to do so because they had an interest in the disciplinary practices of their employer. The court of appeals reversed. American Airlines v. Geddes, Court of Appeal of Florida, 3rd District, No. 3D05-737 (7/5/07).

Point to remember: This case illustrates the breadth and boundaries of HR's leeway to investigate and discuss workplace incidents.