Kwan-Sa You v. Roe

Dr. Charles Roe (defendant) fired Dr. Kwan-Sa You (plaintiff) from his research position at Duke University by sending him a termination letter. The letter stated that You was fired because he had stopped performing his responsibilities, he was reluctant to meet deadlines, and he would not provide recipes to the staff. Duke staff (defendants) held several meetings about You while an administrative appeal delayed his termination. In one meeting that You attended, Roe told You that he would lose his laboratory privileges if he did not turn over recipes and train technical personnel to make reagents. You alleged that Roe and the Duke staff in those meetings maliciously or willfully, wantonly, and recklessly made false and slanderous statements concerning his mental condition. The Duke staff argued that the statements were true and that they had a qualified privilege. The evidence showed these statements were true. You also alleged that he was involuntarily committed because of those statements and that his professional reputation was damaged. You sued Roe and the other Duke staff for slander and libel. You argued that Roe’s termination letter was libel per se because it impeached his trade or profession, and that Roe maliciously communicated the false charges to justify his termination. Roe defends that the statements were true and protected by a qualified privilege. You argued that Roe’s actual malice defeats qualified privilege. You alleged that they had been at odds and that Roe’s personal hostility was the basis for his termination. In addition, You argued that Roe wanted to change the focus of the laboratory’s research, and that was why he wanted to fire You. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Roe and the other Duke staff on both claims. You appealed.