Summary
This memorandum from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania resolves a plaintiff's libel claims stemming from statements made by his former employer during an OSHA whistleblower investigation. Relying on Pennsylvania law, the court determines that an absolute litigation privilege protects communications submitted to quasi-judicial administrative bodies like OSHA. Accordingly, the court grants the defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether statements made to OSHA are protected by the absolute privilege for litigation statements, thereby barring a libel claim.
Holdings
- Absolute privilege applies to Wind River’s statements in OSHA proceedings, so the libel claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Key quotations
“Litigation requires parties to make statements that sometimes disparage their adversaries. To preserve the adversarial system, courts, including Pennsylvania courts, immunize statements made in litigation from claims of defamation.” (at 1)
“Absolute privilege applies to Wind River’s statements in proceedings before OSHA. Those statements therefore cannot give rise to a claim of libel.” (at 1)
Factual background
Mr. Masarik was a wastewater treatment plant operator for Wind River. He raised vehicle‑safety concerns in March 2023 and was subsequently issued a final written warning after a compliance audit. He filed an OSHA whistleblower complaint in June 2023. Wind River submitted a position statement and supplemental statements to OSHA. Masarik sued for libel based on those OSHA statements.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed libel claims in state court; case was removed to this federal district court; defendant filed a motion to dismiss which is now being decided.