Lindenmuth v. McCreer
165 A.3d 544
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2017Background
- Employee dispute at Coca‑Cola Enterprises mechanic shop: Lindenmuth (mechanic) on leave; McCreer (lead mechanic/supervisor) relayed coworker Anderson’s concerns to management that Lindenmuth owned guns, had an out‑of‑state concealed‑carry permit, was returning to work, and might shoot someone.
- Coworkers already knew Lindenmuth owned firearms and he did not mind others knowing.
- Management called police; Lindenmuth was restricted from the facility and later sued McCreer.
- Lindenmuth sued for defamation, invasion of privacy (unreasonable publicity), invasion of privacy (false light), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Trial court initially denied summary judgment, then after a reconsideration hearing found numerous undisputed material facts and granted summary judgment to McCreer on all counts; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation: whether McCreer’s relay of a coworker’s rumor is actionable | Lindenmuth: McCreer made false defamatory statements maliciously to harm him | McCreer: he accurately relayed Anderson’s concerns to management and was entitled to a common‑interest qualified privilege | Held for McCreer: statements were not shown false and were protected by qualified (common‑interest) privilege; no evidence of actual malice |
| Invasion of privacy — unreasonable publicity given to private life | Lindenmuth: disclosure of gun ownership/threats was private and offensive | McCreer: gun ownership was already known; disclosure to management/small group is not "publicity" required for the tort | Held for McCreer: facts were not private and were not publicized to the public at large |
| Invasion of privacy — false light | Lindenmuth: McCreer placed him in a false, offensive light knowing statements were false or recklessly | McCreer: statements were true as relayed and privileged; no proof of falsity or recklessness | Held for McCreer: no falsity shown, privilege applies, and no public ‘‘publicity’’ element met |
| IIED | Lindenmuth: McCreer’s conduct caused severe emotional distress and was outrageous | McCreer: relaying safety concerns to management was not extreme; communication was privileged and reasonable | Held for McCreer: conduct not extreme/outrageous as a matter of law, especially given qualified privilege; IIED fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Piscatelli v. Van Smith, 424 Md. 294 (discussing summary judgment and qualified privilege in defamation)
- Gohari v. Darvish, 363 Md. 42 (explaining common‑interest/qualified privilege)
- Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg’l Med. Ctr., 106 Md. App. 470 (privilege abuse/malice standards and false‑light guidance)
- Batson v. Shiflett, 325 Md. 684 (definition of defamatory statement and actual malice standard)
- Marchesi v. Franchino, 283 Md. 131 (policy and scope of common‑interest privilege)