From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
DiFolco v. MSNBC CABLE LLC
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
622 F.3d 104 (2010)
Claudia DiFolco (plaintiff) had a two-year contract as an entertainment reporter, correspondent, and anchor for MSNBC Cable LLC (codefendant). Midway through, DiFolco claimed that producers Scott Leon and Cassandra Brownstein (codefendants) subjected her to intolerable working conditions by repeatedly canceling her scheduled shoots without notice or justification. On August 23, 2005, DiFolco emailed MSNBC’s president, Rick Kaplan (codefendant), saying she hoped to remain with the MSNBC team, but requesting a meeting to “discuss [her] exit from the shows.” Kaplan agreed to a meeting on September 1 in New Jersey, when DiFolco was already scheduled to be on the East Coast for New York fashion week. Leon canceled DiFolco for fashion week the next day. DiFolco again contacted Kaplan, who said he believed DiFolco had resigned. DiFolco emailed insisting she had not resigned and confirmed their meeting for September 1. But while DiFolco was flying from California to New Jersey, Leon canceled the meeting with Kaplan, and MSNBC sent DiFolco a proposed separation and severance agreement. DiFolco sent a lengthy third email that did not clearly say she had resigned. Stories about DiFolco’s separation from MSNBC promptly appeared on entertainment websites. DiFolco sued for breach of contract, defamation, tortious interference with business relations, and violations of New York labor laws. Specifically, DiFolco claimed MSNBC retaliated against her for complaining about her producers’ alleged harassment and that Kaplan and Leon misinterpreted her emails as resignation notices. The district court found DiFolco had repudiated her contract in the email exchange, meaning MSNBC had no remaining obligations to her. That also meant DiFolco could not recover for defamation or tortious interference with business relations, so the court dismissed those claims as well. DiFolco appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Miner, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 617,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.