Frank v. Allstate Insurance Co.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
32 F. Supp. 3d 569 (2014)
- Written by Brianna Pine, JD
Facts
Susan Frank (plaintiff) worked as an attorney at Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) (defendant) for nearly 24 years. She maintained a strong employment record until 2011, when a new managing attorney began subjecting her to unfounded criticism. In October 2012, Allstate determined that Frank’s personal use of the company’s postage meter, totaling $9.95, violated its code of ethics, and it terminated her for dishonesty in the nature of embezzlement. Frank admitted to using the postage but claimed that the stated reason for her termination was inconsistent with Allstate’s internal policies and served as a pretext for discrimination. Frank sued Allstate, alleging defamation, among other claims. Allstate moved to dismiss the defamation claims, asserting that it had not communicated the reason for Frank’s termination to any third party. Frank responded that the circumstances of her profession as an attorney required her to disclose the stated reason for her termination to prospective employers and clients due to the fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship and her professional duty of candor. She contended that this compelled self-publication satisfied the publication element of defamation under Pennsylvania law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McHugh, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

