DAIGLE v. COMPUTRAC
835 F.Supp. 903 (1993)
Lisa S. DAIGLE
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 REASONS
FELDMAN, 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.Background
This 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