DAIGLE v. COMPUTRAC
835 F.Supp. 903 (1993)
Lisa S. DAIGLE
v.
COMPUTRAC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Telerate Systems, Inc., a division of Dow Jones Company, Inc.
Civ. A. No. 93-0189.
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.
October 20, 1993.
Leonard Alvin Washofsky, Leonard A. Washofsky, PLC, Metairie, LA, for plaintiff.
Jack M. Weiss, Mark Benjamin Holton, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann & Hutchinson, New Orleans, LA, for defendant.
ORDER AND REASONSFELDMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is defendant's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff's claim for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.
BackgroundThis is a diversity-based suit for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant, CompuTrac1, first hired the plaintiff, Lisa S. Daigle, in February of 1988 to work as a sales representative at its main office in New Orleans, Louisiana. Less than three years later, the defendant's President, Timothy Slater, informed the plaintiff that she was going to be promoted to Marketing Manager.2 On December 5, 1991, the day after she learned of her promotion to Marketing Manager, Ms. Daigle, who is white, was involved in an incident3 with a co-worker, Kathleen Maston, who is black.4 Ms. Maston resigned after the incident. The plaintiff, however, was permitted to return to work. After she returned to work, Ms. Daigle was told by Mr. Slater that she would report only to him; that she was not to speak with anyone in the office; she should not provoke anyone, and should not even have eye contact with anyone. Their relationship was obviously not the best. At some point after the December incident, a Ms. Schenkel, an Employee Relations Manager with Dow Jones Company, discussed the incident by telephone with other CompuTrac employees. The record does not suggest that any defamatory comments were made. Thereafter, Dow Jones sent David Sears, Director of Employee Relations, to investigate what happened between Ms. Daigle and Ms. Maston. Based on his investigation, Mr. Sears concluded that the plaintiff had provoked the incident. She was immediately fired.5
1. CompuTrac is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Telerate Systems, Inc., a division of Dow Jones Company.
2. The parties dispute whether Ms. Daigle actually became the Marketing Manager. The plaintiff claims that she was promoted to Marketing Manager in the fall of 1991. She points out that her salary, which was equal to a Marketing Manager's salary, is evidence of her promotion. In contrast, the defendant observes that the plaintiff could not move into the Marketing Manager's position until the departing Marketing Manager had vacated the position for his new job in Asia. This factual dispute is not however, one that precludes summary judgment.
3. Despite plaintiff's insistence that the incident was not an altercation, the characterization of what happened between the plaintiff and Ms. Maston is irrelevant in the present summary judgment environment.
4. The parties dispute what provoked the incident, and who was at fault. Again, this is a factual dispute that does not block summary judgment on the present issues.
5. According to Ms. Daigle, Mr. Sears at first refused to tell her why she was being terminated, stating that he was not required to give her a reason because she was an at will employee. After being pressed for a reason, however, he told her that she was being fired for using racial slurs, profanity and for fighting with Ms. Maston. Ms. Daigle also claims that Mr. Sears then told her that "we don't want your kind around here."
6. Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is anchored to the same facts that inform her claim for defamation.