Wesbrook v. Ulrich
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14008
| W.D. Wis. | 2015Background
- Wesbrook sued former Marshfield Clinic colleagues (Ulrich, Belongia, Lee, Martin) for tortious interference with employment and defamation after his termination as Deputy Director of the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation (MCRF).
- The court previously dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failing to plead an independent tort (Preston) and for vague, conclusory defamation allegations; Wesbrook filed an amended complaint with several documentary exhibits (including Ulrich’s memo and Belongia’s letter).
- Relevant legal requirements: to plead tortious interference in this employment context, Wesbrook must allege the interference did not benefit the employer and that the acts were independently tortious; the amended pleading focused on satisfying the defamation element under Wisconsin law and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
- The amended complaint identifies specific allegedly false statements by Ulrich (a chronology/memo and communications with the Board) and by Belongia (a November 30 letter repeating complaints and alleging coercive/retaliatory conduct); allegations against Lee and Martin remained largely vague and based on information-and-belief assertions.
- Defendants asserted conditional (common interest) privilege and argued the challenged statements were non-actionable opinion; the court held privilege is an affirmative defense not requiring negation at pleading stage.
- The court denied dismissal as to Ulrich and Belongia (finding plausible, sufficiently particular defamatory allegations) and granted dismissal as to Lee and Martin (claims too vague/conclusory and effectively waived as to Martin).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended complaint sufficiently pleads defamation against each defendant | Wesbrook identified specific false statements and publications (memo, letters, calls) that harmed his reputation | Defendants argued allegations were vague, conclusory, or non-actionable opinion | Sustained for Ulrich and Belongia; dismissed for Lee and Martin |
| Whether plaintiff must plead negation of common-interest (conditional) privilege | Wesbrook: not required to plead facts negating privilege at pleading stage | Defendants: privilege bars the defamation claims | Court: privilege is an affirmative defense; plaintiff need not plead to defeat it now |
| Whether the challenged communications are capable of defamatory meaning (law vs. opinion) | Statements alleged (coercion, intimidation, complaints, leadership failures) are verifiable or imply undisclosed facts and thus defamatory | Defendants: statements are opinion or non-actionable | Court: statements by Ulrich and Belongia plausibly capable of defamatory meaning; survive dismissal |
| Whether allegations against Lee and Martin meet Rule 8 particularity | Wesbrook relied on info-and-belief and limited specifics tying Lee/Martin to false content | Defendants: allegations lack specificity; Martin’s claims also effectively waived by lack of response | Court: claims against Lee and Martin dismissed for vagueness; Martin also deemed waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Preston v. Wisconsin Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2005) (employment tortious-interference requires independent tort plus lack of benefit to employer)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must raise claim above speculative level)
- Torgerson v. Journal Sentinel, Inc., 210 Wis.2d 524 (1997) (elements of defamation under Wisconsin law)
- Zinda v. La. Pac. Corp., 149 Wis.2d 913 (1989) (common-interest/conditional privilege and abuse standard)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (statements of opinion not actionable unless they imply undisclosed, verifiable defamatory facts)