Walker v. Wanner Engineering, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 2d 1050

Wanner Engineering, Inc. is a Minnesota employer of 97; Walker worked there 1997–2010.
Walker's supervisor changed from Daryl People to Todd Beilin in 2005.
On July 9, 2010, Walker was observed taking scrap metal; he allegedly lacked proper authorization for this act.
A Purchase Ticket Profile at Realliance Steel showed Walker exchanged over $2,300 in scraps from March–July 2010.
Beilin and others met July 13, 2010, recommended termination; Walker was confronted by police and removed; Walker was arrested after a short investigation; Walker filed suit March 18, 2011 alleging race discrimination and defamation; defendant moved for partial summary judgment solely on defamation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualified privilege applies to defamation claim	Walker contends privilege does not apply due to lack of proper investigation	Wanner argues statements were privileged due to proper occasion and motive	Grewe privileged; Beilin malice disputed; summary judgment denied on privilege issues
Pleading specificity of defamation claim	Walker pleads who said what to whom and where	Wanner claims lack of specificity	Plaintiff's pleadings sufficient to satisfy specificity requirements
Hearsay in support of defamation claim	Statements at issue are not offered for their truth but to show statements were made	Statements are hearsay if offered for truth	Nonhearsay for purpose of proving statements were made; admissible
MHRA exclusivity preemption	Defamation claim should not be preempted by MHRA	MHRA exclusivity preempts common-law claims when facts/injuries align	MHRA exclusivity does not preempt defamation claim due to distinct bases and obligations

Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252 (Minn.1980) (elements of defamation; burden on plaintiff)
Benson v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 561 N.W.2d 530 (Minn.Ct.App.1997) (defamation element burden; privilege considerations)
Bol v. Cole, 561 N.W.2d 143 (Minn.1989) (qualified privilege; abuse requires malice)
Ewald v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 619 (8th Cir.1998) (employer reporting of suspected theft; privilege protection)
Smits v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 525 N.W.2d 554 (Minn.Ct. App.1994) (employee communications; privilege applies to disclosures to colleagues)
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 461 N.W.2d 374 (Minn.1990) (requires reasonable investigation; reliance on biased sources undermines privilege)
Keuchle v. Life’s Companion P.C.A., Inc., 653 N.W.2d 214 (Minn.Ct. App.2002) (defendant’s duty to investigate; privilege considerations)
Pinto v. Internationale Tex., Inc., 650 F.Supp. 306 (D.Minn.1986) (defamation pleading specificity in Minnesota federal court)
Schibursky v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 820 F.Supp. 1169 (D.Minn.1993) (defamation pleading specificity balancing privilege)
Asay v. Hallmark Cards, 594 F.2d 692 (8th Cir.1979) (defamation pleading specifics)