Sade Garnett v. Remedi SeniorCare of Virginia, 892 F.3d 140

Sade Garnett, an employee of Remedi SeniorCare, told coworker Aaron Try she would be absent for surgery; Try allegedly told colleagues crude, false statements that Garnett was having vaginal surgery for an STD/biopsy.
Garnett sued Remedi for defamation in Richmond circuit court; Remedi removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
The district court dismissed Garnett’s complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding Try’s remark was mere conjecture and nonactionable; it also denied leave to amend.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit assumed arguendo the statement could be defamatory but focused on whether Remedi could be vicariously liable for Try’s out-of-workplace gossip.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed on alternative grounds: under Virginia law, an employer is not liable under respondeat superior for employee torts that are outside the scope of employment, and Garnett’s complaint failed to plead facts connecting Try’s remarks to his job duties or to Remedi’s interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Try’s statement was defamatory	Garnett: remark falsely accused her of sexual/medical stigma and harmed reputation	Remedi/Try: remark was mere opinion/conjecture not actionable	Court assumed it could be defamatory but did not decide definitively; resolved appeal on alternate grounds of vicarious liability
Whether Remedi is vicariously liable for Try’s statements (scope of employment)	Garnett: Try was a Remedi supervisor and made the statements at work, so Remedi is liable	Remedi: statements were personal, unrelated to job duties and outside scope of employment	Held: no vicarious liability—complaint failed to plead that remarks were directed by employer, incident to business, or intended to further employer’s interests; dismissal and denial of leave to amend affirmed

Hyland v. Raytheon Tech. Servs. Co., 277 Va. 40, 670 S.E.2d 746 (Va. 2009) (elements of a defamation claim under Virginia law)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard for motions to dismiss)
Plummer v. Ctr. Psychiatrists, Ltd., 252 Va. 233, 476 S.E.2d 172 (Va. 1996) (employer liability when employee’s tort is within scope of employment)
Kensington Assocs. v. West, 234 Va. 430, 362 S.E.2d 900 (Va. 1987) (scope-of-employment test: directed/incident to business and intent to further employer’s interest)
Gina Chin & Assocs., Inc. v. First Union Bank, 260 Va. 533, 537 S.E.2d 573 (Va. 2000) (vicarious liability where tort can be fairly traced to workplace responsibilities)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (employer affirmative defenses in workplace harassment context)
Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (same)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (limits on municipal vicarious liability absent official policy)
Davis v. Merrill, 133 Va. 69, 112 S.E. 628 (Va. 1922) (employee acts arising from personal motive are outside scope of employment)