Troxler v. Charter Mandala Center, Inc.
North Carolina Court of Appeals
365 S.E.2d 665 (1988)
- Written by Ross Sewell, JD
Facts
Reginald Troxler (plaintiff) worked at Charter Mandala Center, Inc. (Mandala) (defendant) with Thomas Kennedy and Gregory Holthusen. Kennedy related to Holthusen that Troxler had told him about having sex with a minor patient. Holthusen reported the allegations to his supervisor, Nancy Davis, who advised Holthusen to report the information to the head nurse. The head nurse told the director of nursing, who told the hospital administrator, Alan Erbe. Erbe contacted his supervisor, an employee of Charter Medical Executive Corporation (Charter Medical) (defendant), who instructed Erbe to investigate. Erbe also notified his supervisory personnel, the local police, and protective services. Troxler was eventually fired. Troxler sued Mandala and Charter Medical for slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In an affidavit, Kennedy stated that he never talked to Holthusen, and that Holthusen resented Troxler. However, Holthusen’s affidavit stated that Kennedy told him about Troxler’s alleged sexual misconduct and that he reported the story out of concern for the patients’ welfare. The only evidence Troxler presented was that Erbe allegedly threatened him with prison. Mandala and Charter Medical raised the affirmative defense of qualified privilege, and they also asserted that Holthusen’s alleged slanderous statements could not be assigned to them, because his statements to Davis were outside the scope of his employment. The trial court granted Mandala and Charter Medical’s motion for summary judgment. Troxler appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.