Kathleen Waugh v. Genesis Healthcare LLC, 222 A.3d 1063

Kathleen Waugh, a registered nurse supplied by Core Medical Group, worked at Springbrook Center in 2016 and was accused by a resident of removing his call bell and making a disparaging remark.
Springbrook investigated, obtained the resident’s account and staff (CNA) statements, interviewed Waugh (who denied the act), and concluded she violated policy.
Director of nursing sent Core a “Travel Employee Performance Counsel Notice” stating, “[The resident] alleges neglect and informed DHHS,” and indicated staff provided statements; the HR manager emailed that Waugh’s denial “is not supported by the CNA and resident interviews.”
Springbrook terminated Waugh’s assignment and Core declined further placements; Waugh sued Genesis Healthcare LLC and Springbrook for defamation and slander/libel per se.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Genesis; on appeal the dispositive question was whether the challenged statements were protected by a conditional privilege and, if so, whether Genesis abused that privilege.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statements made during an employee-discipline investigation are privileged	Waugh: statements were false and therefore unprivileged publications	Genesis: statements made in course of disciplinary investigation enjoy a conditional privilege	Privilege applies to statements made in disciplinary investigations
Whether Genesis abused the conditional privilege (knowledge/reckless disregard or ill will)	Waugh: post-litigation admission that no CNA verified the incident and prior complaints infer malice/ill will	Genesis: no contemporaneous evidence the speakers doubted truth or acted from ill will; later admissions don’t prove state of mind at time	Waugh failed to produce prima facie evidence of actual malice or ill will; privilege not abused
Whether statements were actionable as slander/libel per se or caused special harm	Waugh: statements damaged professional reputation and caused economic loss	Genesis: even assuming falsity and harm, privilege defeats liability absent abuse	Because plaintiff failed to overcome privilege element, defamation and slander/libel per se claims fail; summary judgment affirmed

Rippett v. Bemis, 672 A.2d 82 (Me. 1996) (elements required to prove defamation)
Lester v. Powers, 596 A.2d 65 (Me. 1991) (conditional privilege rationale)
Staples v. Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co., 629 A.2d 601 (Me. 1993) (privilege lost only for knowing falsity, reckless disregard, or ill will)
Morgan v. Kooistra, 941 A.2d 447 (Me. 2008) (statements during employee-discipline investigations are privileged)
Plante v. Long, 170 A.3d 243 (Me. 2017) (distinguishing falsity from malice for privilege analysis)
Cookson v. Brewer Sch. Dep’t, 974 A.2d 276 (Me. 2009) (when statements are actionable as slander/libel per se)