Cockram v. Genesco, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
680 F.3d 1046 (2012)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Jessica Cockram (plaintiff) worked at a Journeys retail store, owned by Genesco, Incorporated (defendant). One day, Keith Slater, an African American customer, brought merchandise back to the store to return it. Cockram entered a generic phone number into the register to speed up the return process. Previously, a former employee had entered a racial slur as one of the names linked to the phone number in the store’s database. Cockram unknowingly selected the entry with the racial slur for Slater’s return. Cockram printed a return receipt, which included the racial slur, and gave it to Slater. Slater returned to the store with several family members the next day to complain about the slur on the receipt. Genesco fired Cockram days later. Genesco released a statement regarding the incident. The statement could have been read to imply that Cockram intentionally communicated the racial slur to Slater. Multiple news stories quoted Genesco’s statement. Cockram was called racist and was threatened. She was so fearful that she moved out of her apartment and left her child to stay with her parents. Cockram eventually agreed to be interviewed but insisted her name be withheld. Cockram sued Genesco for defamation and false-light invasion of privacy. The district court dismissed the false-light claim and granted summary judgment in favor of Genesco on the defamation claim. Cockram appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gruender, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.