Steven J. Shaffer v. Berry Dunn McNeil & Parker, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied Berry Dunn McNeil & Parker, LLC’s motion to dismiss claims for defamation per se and intentional interference with contractual relations brought by Steven J. Shaffer. The court held that Shaffer plausibly alleged that statements concerning his trustworthiness and integrity could imply undisclosed defamatory facts when published to employees who were not part of the underlying discussions. The court also found plausible allegations of improper intent and damages based on the defendant’s alleged interference with Shaffer’s employment.

Holdings

1. The complaint plausibly alleged a defamation claim because Berry Dunn's statements about Shaffer's trustworthiness, transparency, and integrity could reasonably be understood by readers who were not privy to the prior discussion as implying undisclosed defamatory facts.
2. The complaint plausibly alleged publication because the letter was allegedly viewed by Littleton Regional employees other than its named addressees, and negligent communication to a third person can constitute publication.
3. Qualified privilege did not provide a basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) because the privilege's applicability was a factual question for the trier of fact and could be addressed, at the earliest, on summary judgment.
4. The complaint plausibly alleged intentional and improper interference because the allegations supported an inference that Berry Dunn desired to harm Shaffer based on disagreements concerning the Employee Retention Tax Credit and the audit.
5. Shaffer was required to show that Berry Dunn was not a party to his employment contract with Littleton Regional, but he was not required to show that Berry Dunn lacked its own contractual relationship with Littleton Regional.
6. The complaint plausibly alleged resulting damage because the temporal proximity between Berry Dunn's letter and Shaffer's reprimand and employment restrictions, together with his prior positive employment history, supported an inference that the letter contributed to his discipline and termination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Shaffer plausibly alleged that Berry Dunn's statements about his trustworthiness and integrity were actionable defamatory statements of fact or opinions implying undisclosed defamatory facts.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged publication to third parties sufficient to support a defamation claim.
3. Whether qualified privilege required dismissal of the defamation claim at the pleading stage.
4. Whether Shaffer plausibly alleged intentional and improper interference with his contractual relationship with Littleton Regional.
5. Whether Shaffer plausibly alleged that Berry Dunn's conduct caused damage resulting from the alleged interference.

Disposition

other