WPCGT dc{-;-M<"FWZA4;Ԫ7an[2tI2|>0E?Vztu\MXg' lomӮ|{,9u&̨'^;%YQe!SBL+-Oپ_p8<:\X) ]a_$ՓN%MVj -w'0_I# (  %1 0(7U :_LbU): ' A= 0D~U:w~4zV 0 0Dl)U:U:"-\AU:o-sU:, U:(U:&)UN`) )?3e 3 B3K3U:G5y5U:647U:(@U:b@UN@-@-AU:DAU:~AUNAU:BU:@BVzBU:CU: D DDU:ZMU:M)MU:NU:1O AQkOO 0DP 0DP 0D Q D/NQ B}QQ D3RU:R SU: THP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl  $X `   1    2XX 3 Accordingtotherecord,theIVcatheterswere.24gaugeangiocathsusedtostartIVson  infants.X($,rAZ"Arial RegularC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT- -,  AZ"Arial Regular $X `   3    XXXXXX Federalcourtsapplyingstatelawalsohaverecognizedthemajorityrule.DeLeonv.  SaintJosephHosp.,Inc.,871F.2d1229,1237(4thCir.1989)(applyingMarylandlaw);Sprattv.Northern  AutomotiveCorp.,958F.Supp.456,465(D.Ariz.1996)(reasoningthatArizonacourtsarenotamong X| thosethatwouldrecognizeatortofcompelledselfpublication);Sarratorev.LongviewVanCorp.,666F. : Supp.1257,1263(N.D.Ind.1987)(reasoningthatthedoctrineofselfpublicationisnotthelawinIndiana);Hensleyv.ArmstrongWorldIndus.,Inc.,798F.Supp.653,657(W.D.Okla.1992)(statingthat   Oklahomawouldfollowthe vastmajorityofstatesconsideringthetheoryofselfpublicationandrejectit).##Ԁ P t Inotherjurisdictions,theissueappearstobeundecided.Weintraubv.Phillips,Nizer,Benjamin,Krim&  2 Ballon,568N.Y.S.2d84,85(N.Y.App.Div.1991)(statingthatNewYorklawdoesnotrecognizea   defamationclaimwheretheplaintiffvoluntarilyrepublishedtheallegeddefamatorywords);##Doev.    SmithklineBeechamCorp.,855S.W.2d248(Tex.App.1993)( WhileweareawareofnonTexas H l  authorityallowingselfdefamationclaimsunderonlyaforeseeabilitytest,theTexasSupremeCourthasyettoadoptorapprovesuchabroadcauseofaction.Wedeclinetodoso.).##Foranoverviewofcases   consideringtheselfpublicationdoctrine,seegenerallyDavidP.Chapus,Annotation,Publicationof   AllegedlyDefamatoryMatterbyPlaintiff( SelfPublication)asSufficienttoSupportDefamationAction,62 @d  A.L.R.4th616(1988).## 7 $X `   1    ݀ X$XXX  XX$Accordingtotherecord,theIVcatheterswere.24gaugeangiocathsusedtostartIVson  infants.# X$X ؀#(3$ !  ,  AZ"Arial Regular` Pa Db c f k l m n o [p [q r [s [t [u gv gw Dx y Ez E{ E| [} [~ [ [ [ E  [ [ [ E   E  E    E  [ [ E  [ [ [  E E  E E  E  [  [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ E [  [ E E [ [ [ [  [ [ [ [ E  [ [ E    E  E E [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ E  [ [ E  E  E  [ [ [ [ [ [ [    E  E  E  E   E E E E   Ue  E D  E  D! " # $ E% & {' ( ) [* + , - . / 0 U1 U2 3 4 E5 6 D7 8 9 U: [; D< [= D> ? U@ DA :eB C ӀM y& L $X `   2    3XX 33SullivanalsonamedParsonsandhersupervisor,PatThomas,asdefendants,butshe  appealsonlyastotheclaimagainstBaptistfordefamation.(8(2$ !  X `   0  (#$  0  3|xP   $X `   1    3XX 33Accordingtotherecord,theIVcatheterswere.24gaugeangiocathsusedtostartIVson  infants.,  AZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular ##Xd# 7 $X `   1    ݀X$XXX XX$Accordingtotherecord,theIVcatheterswere.24gaugeangiocathsusedtostartIVson  infants.#X$X ؀#,  AZ"Arial Regular e $X `   2    ݀X$XXX XX$SullivanalsonamedParsonsandhersupervisor,PatThomas,asdefendants,butsheappeals  onlyastotheclaimagainstBaptistfordefamation.#X$X ؀# ##Xd#,  AZ"Arial RegularRILEYDrowota  $X `   3    X$XXX XX$  ԀFederalcourtsapplyingstatelawalsohaverecognizedthemajorityrule.DeLeonv.Saint  JosephHosp.,Inc.,871F.2d1229,1237(4thCir.1989)(applyingMarylandlaw);Sprattv.Northern  AutomotiveCorp.,958F.Supp.456(D.Ariz.1996)(statingthatArizonacourtsarenotamongthosethat l recognizeatortofcompelledselfpublication);Sarratorev.LongviewVanCorp.,666F.Supp.1257,1263 4X (N.D.Ind.1987)(statingthatthedoctrineofselfpublicationisnotthelawinIndiana);Hensleyv.   ArmstrongWorldIndus.,Inc.,798F.Supp.653,657(W.D.Okla.1992)(statingthatOklahomawould   followthe vastmajorityofstatesconsideringthetheoryofselfpublicationandrejectit).#  ؝#ԀInother   jurisdictions,theissueappearstobeundecided.  Doev.SmithklineBeechamCorp.,855S.W.2d248 T x (Tex.App.1993)( WhileweareawareofnonTexasauthorityallowing selfdefamationclaimsunderonlyaforeseeabilitytest,theTexasSupremeCourthasyettoadoptorapprovesuchabroadcauseofaction.Wedeclinetodoso.);Weintraubv.Phillips,Nizer,Benjamin,Krim&Ballon,568N.Y.S.2d84(N.    Y.App.Div.1991)(statingthatNewYorklawdoesnotrecognizeadefamationclaimwheretheplaintiffvoluntarilyrepublishedtheallegeddefamatorywords).#  ؅# ]R  Ԁ#  ]R #  Foranoverviewofcasesconsideringtheself <`  publicationdoctrine,seegenerallyDavidP.Chapus,Annotation,PublicationofAllegedlyDefamatory  0  MatterbyPlaintiff( SelfPublication)asSufficienttoSupportDefamationAction,62A.L.R.4th617   (1988).#  P#,  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular $X `   3    /X$XXX/ XX$0   Federalcourtsapplyingstatelawalsohaverecognizedthemajorityrule.DeLeonv.  SaintJosephHosp.,Inc.,871F.2d1229,1237(4thCir.1989)(applyingMarylandlaw);Sprattv.Northern  AutomotiveCorp.,958F.Supp.456(D.Ariz.1996)(statingthatArizonacourtsarenotamongthosethat l recognizeatortofcompelledselfpublication);Sarratorev.LongviewVanCorp.,666F.Supp.1257,1263 4X (N.D.Ind.1987)(statingthatthedoctrineofselfpublicationisnotthelawinIndiana);Hensleyv.   ArmstrongWorldIndus.,Inc.,798F.Supp.653,657(W.D.Okla.1992)(statingthatOklahomawould   followthe vastmajorityofstatesconsideringthetheoryofselfpublicationandrejectit).#/  ؝#ԀInother   jurisdictions,theissueappearstobeundecided.0  Weintraubv.Phillips,Nizer,Benjamin,Krim&Ballon, T x 568N.Y.S.2d84,85(N.Y.App.Div.1991)(statingthatNewYorklawdoesnotrecognizeadefamationclaimwheretheplaintiffvoluntarilyrepublishedtheallegeddefamatorywords);#/  ؏#1]R  #/  ]R#0  Doev.Smithkline    BeechamCorp.,855S.W.2d248(Tex.App.1993)( WhileweareawareofnonTexasauthorityallowing    selfdefamationclaimsunderonlyaforeseeabilitytest,theTexasSupremeCourthasyettoadoptorapprovesuchabroadcauseofaction.Wedeclinetodoso.).#/  #1]R  #/  ]R#0  Foranoverviewofcasesconsideringthe <`  selfpublicationdoctrine,seegenerallyDavidP.Chapus,Annotation,PublicationofAllegedlyDefamatory (  MatterbyPlaintiff( SelfPublication)asSufficienttoSupportDefamationAction,62A.L.R.4th616   (1988).#/  #  )  .J#:G:\TSC1\OPINIONS\SULLIVN3.OPNJG:\TSC1\OPINIONS\SULLIVN3.OPN/    d A $X `   1     &X"XXX&9XX"Accordingtotherecord,theIVcatheterswere.24gaugeangiocathsusedtostartIVson  infants.#&X"X9#,  AZ"Arial Regular o $X `   2     (X"XXX(9XX"SullivanalsonamedParsonsandhersupervisor,PatThomas,asdefendants,butshe  appealsonlyastotheclaimagainstBaptistfordefamation.#(X"X9#,  AZ"Arial Regular  $X `   3    *X"XXX*9XX"+99 Federalcourtsapplyingstatelawalsohaverecognizedthemajorityrule.DeLeonv.  SaintJosephHosp.,Inc.,871F.2d1229,1237(4thCir.1989)(applyingMarylandlaw);Sprattv.Northern  AutomotiveCorp.,958F.Supp.456(D.Ariz.1996)(statingthatArizonacourtsarenotamongthosethat X| recognizeatortofcompelledselfpublication);Sarratorev.LongviewVanCorp.,666F.Supp.1257,1263 : (N.D.Ind.1987)(statingthatthedoctrineofselfpublicationisnotthelawinIndiana);Hensleyv.  ArmstrongWorldIndus.,Inc.,798F.Supp.653,657(W.D.Okla.1992)(statingthatOklahomawould   g followthe vastmajorityofstatesconsideringthetheoryofselfpublicationandrejectit).#*99#ԀInother  jurisdictions,theissueappearstobeundecided.+99Doev.SmithklineBeechamCorp.,855S.W.2d248  (Tex.App.1993)( WhileweareawareofnonTexasauthorityallowing selfdefamationclaimsunderonlyaforeseeabilitytest,theTexasSupremeCourthasyettoadoptorapprovesuchabroadcauseofaction.Wedeclinetodoso.);Weintraubv.Phillips,Nizer,Benjamin,Krim&Ballon,568N.Y.S.2d84(N.  Y.App.Div.1991)(statingthatNewYorklawdoesnotrecognizeadefamationclaimwheretheplaintiffvoluntarilyrepublishedtheallegeddefamatorywords).#*99#, 9Ԁ#*9 #+99Foranoverviewofcasesconsideringtheself P t publicationdoctrine,seegenerallyDavidP.Chapus,Annotation,PublicationofAllegedlyDefamatory  2 MatterbyPlaintiff( SelfPublication)asSufficienttoSupportDefamationAction,62A.L.R.4th617   (1988).#*99^#,  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular ##iXd# ##iXd#,  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular L $X `   2    5XX 6 SullivanalsonamedParsonsandhersupervisor,PatThomas,asdefendants,butshe  appealsonlyastotheclaimagainstBaptistfordefamation.,cAZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular $X `   3    8X$XXX8 XX$9   Federalcourtsapplyingstatelawalsohaverecognizedthemajorityrule.DeLeonv.  SaintJosephHosp.,Inc.,871F.2d1229,1237(4thCir.1989)(applyingMarylandlaw);Sprattv.Northern  AutomotiveCorp.,958F.Supp.456,465(D.Ariz.1996)(reasoningthatArizonacourtsarenotamong l thosethatwouldrecognizeatortofcompelledselfpublication);Sarratorev.LongviewVanCorp.,666F. 4X Supp.1257,1263(N.D.Ind.1987)(reasoningthatthedoctrineofselfpublicationisnotthelawinIndiana);Hensleyv.ArmstrongWorldIndus.,Inc.,798F.Supp.653,657(W.D.Okla.1992)(statingthat   Oklahomawouldfollowthe vastmajorityofstatesconsideringthetheoryofselfpublicationandrejectit).#8  ؝#Ԁ   Inotherjurisdictions,theissueappearstobeundecided.9  Weintraubv.Phillips,Nizer,Benjamin,Krim& T x Ballon,568N.Y.S.2d84,85(N.Y.App.Div.1991)(statingthatNewYorklawdoesnotrecognizea  @ defamationclaimwheretheplaintiffvoluntarilyrepublishedtheallegeddefamatorywords);#8  ؊#9  Doev.    SmithklineBeechamCorp.,855S.W.2d248(Tex.App.1993)( WhileweareawareofnonTexas    authorityallowingselfdefamationclaimsunderonlyaforeseeabilitytest,theTexasSupremeCourthasyettoadoptorapprovesuchabroadcauseofaction.Wedeclinetodoso.).#8  #9  Foranoverviewofcases <`  consideringtheselfpublicationdoctrine,seegenerallyDavidP.Chapus,Annotation,Publicationof (  AllegedlyDefamatoryMatterbyPlaintiff( SelfPublication)asSufficienttoSupportDefamationAction,62   A.L.R.4th616(1988).#8  ؁#,  AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular  $X `   1    ;XX <Accordingtotherecord,theIVcatheterswere.24gaugeangiocathsusedtostartIVson  infants.,cAZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular>?@ABC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  CC' dxdP Pd ?"  FXXXXFXFX   Ad FILEDFXXF  August17,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh $$$$'dxd,cAZ"Arial Regular ?"  HXXXXHXHX   Ad FILEDHXXH  July12,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular !      XXXXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T!  =Xdd=   y #9928(revisedU 6U /W 01W /99)y z z { {  =XXdd=Ӝ M M M C C r=DE<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxPX  rM C C IN  THESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  M M @@vv%ATJACKSONzM t=GE>.*jx}` `@E/ ` 8ttxPg } tߛM ̜ ̛    `       h      p    FORPUBLICATION & J     `    `         h      p   ) ) Filed:# # $ # j# $ & % July% & & July& % % ' 12,' ( ( ' 1999' " _____________" !  (# ! "  (# " ) )     'XXDpXX'KARENSULLIVAN, h      D )    `     h      D ) `  Appellee, h      D ) p     `       h      D )   p     񀀀SHELBY  CIRCUIT |   `     h      D ) b   `     h    D ) Hl Vs. `     h   `   ` f f `   ` f f `  D ` f f )   p   * * HON.KARENWILLIAMS, .R  `     h       a a f f a a f f a a f f a a    D ) p   , ,     - - JUDGE    8  `     h      D ) p   + +    `     h      D )BAPTISTMEMORIALHOSPITAL,   D )   `     h      D ) p    `  Appellant. h      D ) p   No.02S019804CV00032   `     h     FortheAppellant:   h      D  p ForAppellee:     PaulE.Prather   h      D  p StephenH.Biller "  StevenW.Likens   h      D  p Memphis,Tennessee #! KIESEWETTERWISEKAPLAǸSCHWIMMER&PRATHER,PLC   D  p SaraL.Hall f%# Memphis,Tennessee h      D  p Memphis,Tennessee L&p $ .  `  . ̀#YXX  `     h   OPINION #XX#Y[# |-', COURTOFAPPEALSREVERSED;TRIALCOURTJUDGMENTAFFIRMED/ ./  D  p      x ANDERSON,C.J  6405 A A 7 XXdXXd7    u -u v .v    ` } } Wegranted  the| |   | | appeal  inthisdefamationcaseto  determinewhether| |   | | the  elementofpublicationissatisfiedwhenanemployeeiscompelledtodisclosetoaprospectiveemployerthereasongivenforterminationbyaformeremployer.} }     b [I t  combinedandrevisedthethefirstandlastsentencesoftheparagraph.] [ Toestablish @ d aprimafaciecaseofdefamation:apartymustpublishastatement;withknowledgethatthestatementisfalseanddefamingtoanother,withrecklessdisregardforthetruthofthestatement,orwithnegligenceinfailingtoascertainthetruthofthestatement. PublicationisatermofartmeaningthecommunicationofdefamatorymattertoathirdϜperson. ] 󀜀[Iwouldleavethesesentencesout.Theyarerepeatedintheanalysis <` section.Sincesomuchofthefirstparagraphhasnowbeendeleted,Iwouldcombinethefirstandsecondparagraphs.]b Thetrial t  courtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttodefendants,concludingthattheplaintiffsselfpublishedstatementsfailedtosatisfythepublicationelementofdefamation.TheCourtofAppealsreversed,adoptingtheminorityviewthatselfpublicationsatisfiesthepublicationelementwhen1)thedefendantcanreasonablyforeseethattheplaintiffwillbecompelledtopublishthedefamatorystatementand2)theplaintiffisinfactcompelledtopublishthedefamatorystatementon  subsequent~ ~ ~ ~ employment  applications. ` X XXXAfterourreviewoftherecordandapplicablelaw,weconcludethat   compelled     selfpublicationdoesnotsatisfythepublicationelementessentialtoaprimafaciecase  ofdefamationbecauseitiscontrarytothewellsettledlawofthisState,whichreflectsthemajorityview,andcontrarytoimportantpolicyprinciples.Accordingly,wereversetheCourtofAppealsjudgmentandreinstatethetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmenttothedefendant.#XXXX #  #0     BACKGROUND  & $   X XXX ` #XXXX #X XXXPlaintiffKarenSullivan( Sullivan)workedfulltimefordefendantBaptist ("& MemorialHospital( Baptist)asaneonatalnurseintheneonatalintensivecareunit.WhileworkingforBaptist,SullivanalsoperformedtemporarynursingservicesforSt.FrancisHospital( St.Francis)throughanursingservicestaffingagency.St.Francisb !7"XXdXXd7  b a !7"XXdXXd7  a wasintheprocessofsettingupitsownneonatalunitandemployedseveralBaptistnurses. ` Accordingtotherecord,BaptistgrewsuspiciousthatitsnursesweretakingBaptistsproperty,i.e.certainmedicaldevices,inanefforttoassistSt.Francisinthedevelopmentofitsneonatalunit.ThatsuspicionfocusedonSullivan. |938 !7 XXdXXd7  C !7XXdXXd7  C !7RXXdXXd7    ` Thereafter,SusanParsons( Parsons),aBaptistnurse,saidshetoldSullivanssupervisorthatSullivantookneonatalIVcathetersfromBaptisttouseatSt.Francis.c    A A A :A         c c %c #  1      כA A   ParsonsalsosaidshehadaconversationwithSullivaninwhich she  Sullivan confidedthatshehadtakentheA   A angiocathsA   A toSt.Francis,aboutwhichParsonstestifiedasfollows:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#[Sullivan]precededtotellmethat[aSt.Francisphysician]hadevenaskedheropinionofpumps,whatkindofpumpstoorderfortheirunit.ThenshewentontosaythatIeventooksomeA   A angiocathsA   A andcoveredhermouth,putherhandoverhermouthandstartedspeakingquietlyandsoftlyandlookedaroundtheroomasiftoseeiftherewasanybodyaround.   A A 0 0 A A 8 ` 8 ` (#` (#  Andatthesametimeshesaid,IguessIshouldntsaythattooloudly.ButItookthoseovertherebecausetheoldA   A angiocathsA   A theywereusingweretheoldtypeweusedtousehere.AndtheydidntworkverywellsoItookthemsomeofournewerones.   WhenBaptistconfrontedSullivanwithParsonsaccusations,SullivandeniedtheconversationanddeniedtakingBaptistspropertyforuseatSt.Francis.Nonetheless,BaptistterminatedSullivanformisappropriatingitsproperty. ` Afterhertermination,SullivanappliedforaneonatalnursepositionatbothMethodistHospitalandJacksonMadisonCountyHospital.ShesaysthatshewascompelledtorevealthedefamatoryreasonBaptistterminatedher,and,asaresult,neitherhospitalhiredher.SullivanthenfiledsuitincircuitcourtagainstBaptistallegingdefamationandothercausesofaction.f      4     f f ' f #  2      ׀ *$)  ` Baptistfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentonthegroundsthatitdidnotpublishthedefamatoryinformation,whichisanessentialelementofadefamationaction.SullivanconcededthatBaptistdidnotpublishtheinformationbutcontendedthatthepublicationelementofherdefamationclaimwassatisfiedbecauseshewas 3-3      compelled     topublishBaptistsdefamatorystatementson  subsequentemployment  applications. ` ThetrialcourtgrantedBaptistsmotionforsummaryjudgment,onthegroundsthatselfpublishedstatementsdonotsatisfythepublicationelementofacauseofactionfordefamationandarenotactionableunderTennesseelaw.TheCourtofAppealsreversed.Itreasonedthat thelawinTennesseeshouldrecognizetheprincipleofcompelledselfpublication,andheldthatthepublicationelementrequiredforadefamationclaimcanbemetif1)thepublicationofthedefamatorystatementisreasonablyforeseeabletothedefendant,and2)theplaintiffiscompelledtorepublishthedefamatorystatement.TheCourtofAppealslimiteditsholdingtoapplyonly tothosecasesinanemploymentsettinginwhichtheplaintiffisforcedtorepublishfalseanddefamatoryreasonsforhisorherterminationonsubsequentjobapplications.#XXXX# ` Wegrantedthedefendantsapplicationforpermissiontoappeal. (    ANALYSIS "      ` Webeginouranalysisbynotingtheapplicablestandardofreview.Thetrial h$" courtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentispurelyaquestionoflaw;accordingly,ourreviewisdenovo,andnopresumptionofcorrectnessattachestothelowercourtsjudgments.E.g.,CityofA   A TullahomaA   A v.BedfordCounty,938S.W.2d408,412(Tenn.1997). )#(  ` ToestablishaprimafaciecaseofdefamationinA A Tennessee,2 2 the 3 3 4 3 yhr3 4 5 the5 2  aprivateperson 2 A A plaintiffmustestablishthat:1)apartypublishedastatement;2)A A 6  either   6 withA A knowledgethatthestatementisfalseanddefamingtotheother;A A k ork  7 or7 3)A A withrecklessdisregardforthetruthoftheϜA A statementl ;or [ 4) ] [Iwoulddeletethe 4)becauseitisreallyjustanalternativewayof 2,2 establishingthethirdelement,notaseparatefourthelement.]l x withnegligenceinfailingtoascertainthetruthofthestatementx 8  ;or  4)  withnegligenceinfailingtoascertainthetruth 8  e  8  ofthestatement 8 B orwithnegligenceinfailingtoascertainthetruthofthestatementB .A A 񛀀See 2,2 Restatement(Second)ofTorts580B(1977);Press,Inc.v.A   A VerranA   A ,569S.W.2d435, 4.4 442(Tenn.1978). Publicationisatermofartmeaningthecommunicationofdefamatorymattertoathirdperson.QualityAutoPartsCo.v.BluffCityBuickCo.,876 ,8P28 S.W.2d818 ,  9   821 (Tenn.1994). 94: Ї ` ThesoleissueinvolvedinthisappealiswhetherSullivans compelledrepeatingofBaptistsdefamatoryreasonsforterminationsatisfiesthepublicationelementofadefamationaction.  AdoptingtheCourtofAppealsreasoning,Sullivanarguesthatthe t  publicationelementissatisfiedbecause:1)BaptistcouldreasonablyforeseethatSullivanwouldhavetocommunicatethedefamatoryreasonsforherterminationtoathirdparty;and2)Sullivanwasinfactcompelled    by  prospective     employerstorevealthedefamatoryreasonsforhertermination. ` UrgingthisCourttoadoptthedoctrineofself    publicationandtoaffirmtheCourtofAppeals,Sullivaninsiststhatonly compelledselfpublicationinanemploymentsetting,asopposedtovoluntaryselfpublication,shouldbeactionable.Baptist,ontheotherhand,arguesthattheCourtofAppealsdecisioniscontrarytoprecedent,themajorityview,Tennessees F F  employee F F     atwilldoctrine,importantjurisprudentialconcerns,andotherpolicyprinciples.XXXXԀ 8\ #XXXX=# ` m [ Asnotedbybothparties, ] [Iwoulddelete.]m  This  Courtfirstconsideredthedoctrineofselfpublicationinanonemployment   contextinA   A SylvisA   A v.Miller,96Tenn. (12Pickle) 94,33S.W.921( Tenn.  1896).InSylvis,theplaintiff "  receivedadefamatoryletterthroughthemailwhichheopenedandshowedtoseveralfriendsandrelatives.Thetrialcourtinstructedthejurythattheplaintiffspublicationofdefendantsf 7XXdXXd7  f defamatorystatementswouldnotsupportadefamationaction.Onappeal,thisCourtreasonedthatthe defendantisnotanswerableforanythingtheplaintiffmaychoosetodowiththeletterafterithasoncesafelyreachedhishands,andheldthat [i]fapersonreceivesalettercontaininglibelousmatter,hewillnotbejustifiedinpublishingit.Id.at922.Accordingly , weaffirmedthetrialcourt. 0/T).   .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7    .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7    .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7   .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7   .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7    .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7    .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7    .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7    .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7    .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7    .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7    .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7   l 7XXdXXd7  l f 7XXdXXd7  f  ` Threeyearslater,inKansasCity,M.&B.R.Co.v.Delaney,102Tenn. (18  Pickle) 289,52 2,2 S.W.151( Tenn. 1899),thisCourtwasagainpresentedwithanopportunitytoadoptthe  .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7   .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7   .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7    .7XXdXXd77$XXdXXd7   doctrineofselfpublication,thistimeinanemploymentsetting.n [Iwouldnotputemploymentsettinginquotes.]n InDelaney,the `606 plaintiffsagentm #Xd#  m obtainedarecommendationletterfromplaintiffspreviousemployer,whichallegedthatn 7XXdXXd7  n m 7XXdXXd7  m plaintiff,aunionmember,hadlefthis  .7XXdXXd77RXXdXXd7   x  .7XXdXXd77RXXdXXd7  x v 7XXdXXd7  v u 7XXdXXd7  u n 7XXdXXd7  n employmentduringastrike. 94:  .7XXdXXd77XXdXXd7  B  .7XXdXXd77XXdXXd7  B A  .7XXdXXd77XXdXXd7   .7XXdXXd77XXdXXd7  A 8  .7XXdXXd77XXdXXd7   .7XXdXXd77XXdXXd7  8 0  .7XXdXXd77XXdXXd7  0 /  .7XXdXXd77XXdXXd7  / Thoughthedefendantshowedtheletteronlytotheplaintiffsagent,theplaintiffshowedthelettertopotentialemployers.ThisCourtstatedthat [u]ndertheauthorities,thecompanyisnotliableforanyoftheconsequencesoftheactof[plaintiff]inmakingpublicationoftheletterafteritreachedhishands.Id.at152.ApplyingSylvis,this @ d Courtheldthattheplaintiffwasnotjustifiedinpublishingthedefamatoryletter.XXXXԀId.at  0 15253.                          #XXXXÍX# `    SullivanattemptstodistinguishthisearlyTennesseeprecedentbyarguingthat p  theselfpublicationinSylviswasoutsidetheemploymentcontextandtheself <` publicationinDelaneywasvoluntary.  XXXX  Sullivancontendsthatonly compelledself , publicationinanemploymentcontextshouldbeactionable.      #XXXXZ# `     Asonecommentatorhasobserved,however, compulsionispresentinevery l defamationcaseinvolvingself    publicationofthereasonforterminationbyaformeremployer:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#o o Compulsionwithinthemeaningofthedoctrinewouldautomaticallyoccurwhenaprospectiveemployerasksanapplicantforhisorheremploymenthistoryandreason(s)forleavingthepreviousplaceofemployment,andtheapplicantrepeatstheterminationreasongivenbytheformeremployer.Allformeremployerswillbeheldtohaveforeseenortohavehadanobligationtoforeseethattheformeremployeewouldbeaskedtoprovidethisinformationandwouldthusbe compelledtoA A answer.1    1 A A A A o o  \ p p  RonaldTurner,CompelledSelfPublication:HowDischargeBegetsDefamation,14 *$) Emp loyee  l. Rel.L.J.19,2728(1988). p p   Thus,wedonotfindpersuasiveSullivansargumentthatourpriordecisionsrejectingthedoctrineofselfpublicationaredistinguishablebecausetheselfpublicationinthosecaseswasvoluntary. -7$XXdXXd7     -7$XXdXXd7   -7$XXdXXd7    ` q [Ichangedthebeginningofthesentencessettingforththemajorityandminority z5/5 viewsbecausetoomuchofthisopinionseemstobewhatthepartiesargue,asopposedtostatementsbythisCourtastowhatthelawis.]q   Otherstatesaresplitonhowtoresolvethequestionofselfpublication.The 3-3 minorityviewisthatselfpublicationintheemploymentsettingsatisfiesthepublicationrequirementofdefamationbecausetheplaintiffiseffectively -7RXXdXXd7   v -7"XXdXXd7  v compelledtopublishthedefamatorymaterialtoprospectiveemployers.Thus,theselfpublicationisreasonably 9639 -7XXdXXd7  A -7XXdXXd7  A 8 -7XXdXXd7  8 foreseeabletotheformeremployer.See  ,  e.g.,  XXXXMcKinneyv.CountyofSantaClara,110  1 -7XXdXXd7  1 0 -7XXdXXd7  0 / -7XXdXXd7  / Cal.App.3d787,168Cal.Rptr.89(Cal.Ct.App.1980) ;  Churcheyv.AdolphCoorsCo.  ,759P.2d1336(Colo.1988);Belcherv.   Little,315N.W.2d734(Iowa1982) ;Munsellv.IdealFoodStores,  494P.2d1063(Kan.1972);#XXXX,g#XXXXGristv.UpjohnCo.,168N.W.2d389(Mich.Ct.App.1969); t  #XXXXi#XXXXLewisv.EquitableLifeAssuranceSocy,389N.W.2d876(Minn.1986).#XXXXËj#  @ d  `   Themajorityofstatesaddressingtheissuedonotrecognizeselfpublicationas   constitutingpublicationfordefamationpurposes,evenwhenthepublicationiscompelledintheemploymentsetting.     See       ,    ,      e.g.,  Gorev.HealthTex,Inc.,567So.2d p  1307 ,1308 (Ala.1990);Laynev.BuildersPlumbingSupplyCo.,569N.E.2d1104(Ill.App.Ct. <` 1991)Yetterv.WardTruckingCorp.,585A.2d1022 ,1025 (Pa.Super.Ct.1991).f       7   !   f f )f #  3      ׀  Rejection , ofthedoctrineofcompelledselfpublicationisbasedonpolicyreasons,includingthepublicsinterestinopencommunicationaboutemploymentinformationandlimitingthescopeofdefamationliability:     8 ` 8 ` (#` (#Bothemployersandemployeeshavesignificantinterestinopencommunicationaboutjobrelatedproblems.Further,itisinthepublicinterestthatinformationregardinganemployeesdischargebereadilyavailabletothedischargedemployeeandtoprospectiveemployers.Inouropinion,thedoctrineofcompelledselfdefamationundulyburdensthefreecommunicationofviewsandunreasonablybroadensthescopeofdefamationliability.#!    Layne,569N.E.2d     at1111 (citationomitted) . pA A / XXXX#XXXXÌt#XXXX#XXXXt#/  A A A A  N%r#   `   W  eagreethat  the  potentialfor  defamation  liability  everytimeanemployeeis ( #' terminated  wouldchillcommunicationsintheworkplace,preventingemployersfrom *$) disclosingreasonsfor its  their businessdecisions,andwouldnegativelyaffectgrievance ~,&+ proceduresintendedtobenefitthedischargedemployee. r r  Asonecommentatorhasobserved:8 ` 8 ` (#` (#  Ashutdownofcommunicationwouldhurtbothemployeesandemployers.Employeesfalselyaccusedofmisconductmaybewrongfullyterminatedbecausetheywouldneverhaveachancetorebutthefalseaccusations.Employeeswhomaybeabletoimprovesubstandardjobperformancesmayfailtodosobecauseneededfeedbackiswithheld....Itseemsthatbothemployeesandemployersstandtoloseifemployersadoptapolicyofsilence....Unfortunately,r   r r   r employeeswillbearthecostsofsuchapolicywithoutacorrespondingbenefit.A A 9    9 A A A A uLouisB.Eble,SelfPublicationDefamation:EmployeeRightorEmployeeBurden?,47 <` BaylorL.Rev.745,77980(1995).Moreover,recognitionoftheselfpublicationdoctrinemayfurtherharmemployeeswhohavebeenfiredfordiscriminatoryreasons. Normally,afactfinderwouldbejustifiablysuspiciousifanemployerfiredanemployeeinaprotectedgroupandrefusedtoexplainthereasonfortheterminationatthetimeofdischarge.Id.at784.Inlightoftheselfpublicationdoctrine,however,anemployers 8\ silencecouldjustifiablybeviewedassavvyratherthansuspicious.Id.at78485; r r  A A see  = ,=   > ,> A A A A  ( e.g.,Layne,569N.E.2dat1111( [T]heonlywayanemployercouldseeminglyavoid   litigationandthepossibleliabilityforsubstantialdamagesinsituationssuchastheinstantonewouldbetodeterfromcommunicati o n g toanemployee,aswellastoathirdperson,thereasontheemployerfeltjustifiedinterminatingemployment.); A A see: : ; : : ; A   A   A A   < < A   A  also ; ; A A A A < <  4&X $ Lewis v.EquitableLifeAssuranceSocy ,389N.W.2d 876,  at 896 (Minn.1986) (Kelley,J.,dissenting). ($"& ?" X' XDpXXXDpX?  Weconclude  thatimportantpolicyconcernsweighinfavorofouradherenceto +%* themajorityview.Forinstance,plaintiffsallowedtoavailthemselvesoftheselfpublicationdoctrinewouldhavelessincentivetomitigatedamages.Layne,569N.E.2d 0/T). at1111.Becausethestatuteoflimitationsinadefamationcasebeginstorunfromthedateofpublication,QualityAutoPartsCo.,876S.W.2dat82122,andsinceanew 2,2 causeofactionariseswitheachpublication,seeid.,aplaintiffrelyingonthedoctrineof 4.4 selfpublicationwouldnotonlyhavetheabilitytocontrolthestatuteoflimitationsbutalsothenumberofcausesofactionwhicharise. s   s   Inotherwords, s s     aplaintiffneedonly ,8P28 applyforajobinordertocreateorrenewaclaimfor compelledselfpublication. 94: Consequently,thedefendantemployercouldpotentiallybesubjecttoliabilitythroughouttheplaintiffslifetime.  t t  Moreover t t  ,we  conclude  thatthe  doctrineofcompelledselfpublication  conflictswithTennessees J J  employee J J   atwill      doctrine.AlthoughSullivancontendsthatanemployerwouldbeliableundertheselfpublicationdoctrine onlyfornegligentlyinvestigatingandthenstatingadefamatoryreasonforterminationwhenitisreasonablyforeseeablythattheformeremployeewillbecompelledtorepeatand publishthisdefamatoryreasontopotentialemployers,anemployerinTennesseehasnodutytoinvestigatebeforeterminatinganatwillemployee.Cf.Steinv.DavidsonHotelCo.,945 , S.W.2d714,717(Tenn.1997).    F  or  overacentury,Tennesseehasrecognizedthat,withlimitedexceptionsnotapplicablehere,   an    employer    ...   mayterminateanemploymentatwillrelationshipatanytimeforgoodcause,badA A cause , A A A A orno  cause.    E.g.,  Paynev.  RailroadCo   T   Western   andA   &  Atl.R.R.   eh    he  . ,  81 ( Tenn.  507 ,51820   (1884);Forresterv.Stockstill,869S.W.2d328,330(Tenn.1994).   Toadoptthedoctrineofcompelledselfpublicationandtoimposeadutyonemployerstoconductathoroughinvestigationleadingtoaccurateconclusionswouldsignificantlycompromisethesewellsettledprinciplesencompassedby theatwillemployment 4&X $ doctrineinTennessee.Cf.DeLeonv.SaintJosephHosp.,Inc.,871F.2d1229,1237 ($"& (4thCir.1989)( [  T]he  theoryofselfpublicationmightvisitliabilityfordefamationonevery...employereachtimeajobapplicantisrejected.).     Inaddition,         wenotethatthe  legislaturehasspokenontheissueoftheemployersliabilityincurredfromcommunicatinginformationaboutanemployee.Tenn.CodeAnn.501105(Supp.1998).Thissectionprovidesthat:    8 8 " "[a]nyemployerthat,uponrequestbyaprospectiveemployeroracurrentorformeremployee,providestruthful,fairandunbiasedinformationaboutacurrentorformeremployeesjobperformanceispresumedtobeactingingoodfaithandisgrantedaqualifiedimmunityforthedisclosureandtheconsequencesofthedisclosure.Thepresumptionofgood 94: faithisrebuttableuponashowingbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethattheinformationdisclosedwas:       (1)Knowinglyfalse;    (2)Deliberatelymisleading;    (3)Disclosedforamaliciouspurpose;    (4)Disclosedinrecklessdisregardforitsfalsityordefamatory     h nature;or    (5)Violativeofthecurrentorformeremployeescivilrights     h pursuanttocurrentemploymentdiscriminationlaws."Id.Underthisstatute,merenegligenceisnotenoughtorebutthepresumptioninfavor   oftheemployersgoodfaith.Id.       Incontrast,defamationmaybeprovenbyestablishing p  thatapartypublishedafalseanddefamingstatementwithrecklessdisregardforthetruthorwithnegligenceinfailingtoascertainthetruth.     W   verr     Verran    ,569S.W.2dat442.   ,     Thus,under       thestatute,anemployercouldnotbeheldliable    " "  for " "       disclosingallegedly  defamatoryinformation  aboutwhichitwasonlynegligentinascertainingthetruth.Itfollows,therefore,thatanemployershouldnotbeheldliablefordisclosureofthissameinformationwhenitisself 8 8    publishedbyaformeremployee. 1 1             Accordingly,  afterconsideringtheargumentsofbothparties,therecord,andapplicablelaw,weconcludethatourholdingsinSylvisandDelaneyareinaccordance "  withthewellreasonedmajorityruleinotherA A jurisdictions , A A A A andarecontrollinginthiscase.Wethereforedeclinetoadoptthedoctrineof              > >  compelled  selfpublication.   4&X $    @` CONCLUSION )#(   Inourview,thedoctrineof  @ @  compelled  selfpublication  iscontrarynotonlytothe +%* wellsettledlawofthisstateandthemajorityviewbutalsoimportantpolicyprinciples.Accordingly,theCourtofAppealsisreversed.Wereinstatethejudgmentofthetrialcourtgrantingsummaryjudgmenttothedefendantandremandtothetrialcourtforfurthernecessaryproceedingsinaccordancewiththisopinion.Costsofthisappealaretaxedagainsttheplaintiffforwhichexecutionshallissueifnecessary.     h      D  p ______________________________     h      D  p RILEYANDERSON,CHIEFJUSTICE 94: ЇA A  PANEL  C   IB   ONCUR : A A A A   A A @ ? ? @ Drowota,A A A A Birch,Holder,andBarker,JJ.  w S "S w