Duane Porter v. Braskem America, Inc.
21-1265
| 4th Cir. | Nov 2, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Duane Porter sued Braskem America, Inc., Jeffrey Blatt, and Mi-De-Con, Inc. for defamation, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy after his employment ended.
- Porter was told on June 29, 2018 that MDC had accused him of financial impropriety; Braskem later investigated and found the allegations unfounded.
- On July 26, 2018 Porter allegedly disclosed the investigation despite instructions not to, used profanity, and created a disturbance; Braskem terminated him afterward.
- Porter filed his complaint on August 5, 2019. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; Porter appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo, applied West Virginia law, and considered whether claims were time-barred and whether defendants caused Porter’s termination.
- The court affirmed summary judgment: the defamation claim was time-barred, tortious interference lacked causation, and the conspiracy claim failed because underlying claims failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Porter’s defamation claim was timely under WV’s one-year statute | The claim is timely (relied on termination date as injury) | Porter learned of defamatory statements on June 29, 2018; suit filed after one year | Defamation claim is time-barred; statute began when Porter knew of accusations |
| Whether Porter proved tortious interference with his employment | MDC’s allegations caused Braskem to terminate Porter | Braskem investigated, found allegations unfounded; termination was for Porter’s disclosure and conduct | No prima facie tortious interference; defendants entitled to summary judgment |
| Whether negligence concepts (proximate cause/foreseeability) apply to tortious interference | Proximate cause and intervening-cause analysis show causation | Intentional tort standard applies; negligence proximate-cause principles do not govern | Negligence proximate-cause principles are inapplicable to intentional tort; Porter’s causation theory fails |
| Whether civil conspiracy claim survives if underlying torts fail | Conspiracy exists based on defendants’ coordinated actions | Conspiracy claim depends on viable underlying torts; those claims fail | Conspiracy claim dismissed as derivative of failed claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Padon v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 411 S.E.2d 245 (W. Va. 1991) (statute of limitations for defamation runs from date plaintiff knew or should have known of the defamatory fact)
- Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 320 S.E.2d 70 (W. Va. 1983) (definition of defamatory statement and reputational harm)
- Garrison v. Herbert J. Thomas Mem’l Hosp. Ass’n, 438 S.E.2d 6 (W. Va. 1993) (elements required to establish tortious interference)
- McKenzie v. Sevier, 854 S.E.2d 236 (W. Va. 2020) (negligence proximate-cause principles do not apply to intentional torts)
- Dunn v. Rockwell, 689 S.E.2d 255 (W. Va. 2009) (civil conspiracy claim depends on viable underlying torts)
- Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Off. of the Cts., 780 F.3d 562 (4th Cir. 2015) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)