Vincent Morford v. TLC Express, LLC, d/b/a Indy Expediting (mem. dec.)
49A02-1603-PL-642
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- Morford was employed by Indy Expediting starting March 7, 2013, and was terminated March 22, 2013 after failing a pre-employment drug test.
- Morford sent Indy Expediting a June 21, 2013 handwritten letter admitting he failed the drug test and stating he encouraged co-driver Emily Reeves to file charges against the company to "get even," but later recanted as a change of heart.
- Morford filed EEOC charges (May and August 2013) and later sued Indy Expediting on June 4, 2014 alleging wage claims, intentional interference with an economic relationship (with Towne Air Freight), and blacklisting.
- Indy Expediting responded to a Safety Performance History Records Request from Towne Air Freight on August 5, 2013, disclosing Morford’s failed drug test and statements that he filed false allegations and lied.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Indy Expediting on the intentional interference and blacklisting claims (denying summary judgment on the wage claim); that interlocutory order was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indy Expediting tortiously interfered with Morford’s employment relationship with Towne Air Freight | Morford contends Indy Expediting’s disclosures caused interference and were unjustified | Indy Expediting asserts its disclosures were truthful, compelled by regulation, and made without malice or intent to injure | Court: No tortious interference — disclosures were justified and supported by Morford’s own admissions |
| Whether Indy Expediting violated Indiana's blacklisting statute by disclosing reasons for termination | Morford argues the disclosures were false or known to be false when made | Indy Expediting contends the disclosures were truthful (failed drug test, prior allegations) and statutorily protected unless known false | Court: No blacklisting — statute immunizes truthful disclosures; Morford failed to show the information was known false |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.2d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Levee v. Beeching, 729 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (elements of tortious interference with business relationship)
- Bradley v. Hall, 720 N.E.2d 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (tortious interference elements)
- Bilimoria Computer Sys., LLC v. Am. Online, Inc., 829 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (justification/legitimate business purpose avoid liability for interference)
- Steele v. McDonald’s Corp., 686 N.E.2d 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (employer immunity for truthful disclosures to subsequent employers)