George A. HEFT
v.
William R. BURK, Jr. and Burk & Associates, Inc.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
John E. Jackson, Baldwin J. Allen & John E. Jackson, Jr., John E. Jackson, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Ralph L. Kaskell, Jr., New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.
Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and MORIAL, JJ.
GULOTTA, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment maintaining an exception of no cause of action to his suit for damages for defamation based upon a letter written to Jefferson Parish and State officials in which defendant charged that plaintiff, a competitive engineer, had attempted to "proselyte employees" and "pirate personnel" from defendant's firm, which practice defendant characterized as unethical.[1]
Plaintiff claims that his good reputation, standing, and statute have been damaged as a result of the writing and publication of this letter. He further alleges that the accusations in the letter were misrepresentations and constituted false and malicious attacks on his personal skill and reputation. According to the plaintiff, the content of the letter is defamatory on its face and libelous per se subjecting him to ridicule and *60 disgrace. The plaintiff further maintains that if the content of the letter is not libelous per se, it is nevertheless libelous when the content of the letter and the extrinsic facts and circumstances surrounding its publication are considered.
Plaintiff contends that Madison v. Bolton,
In Madison, the plaintiff sued the owner of a newspaper after an editorial appeared in the paper insinuating that plaintiff had enriched himself at public expense. The court concluded that the editorial was calculated to produce, by inuendo, insinuation, and misrepresentation of fact, the impression that plaintiff had engaged in wrongdoing. The court stated that the implication was clear when the statement was considered in the context in which it was written. In the instant case, the letter simply does not charge wrongdoing. It is merely an opinion of the writer that one engaging in the practice of hiring personnel from a place of employment is unethical conduct. The words "proselyte" and "pirate" might be considered strong words to describe this practice, but their use does not make the statement defamatory. Nor does the use of the word "unethical", when read in context, make the letter defamatory. In the letter, the defendant stated, "We strenuously object to this practice as being totally unethical." As written, in the defendant's opinion, this practice is unethical. We can perceive no other meaning or insinuation to these words, whether the statement is read alone, or in context with other parts of the letter. The statements, in this instance, simply are not libelous or defamatory.
We find our case similar to Coffee v. Smith,
Affirmed.
NOTES
Notes
[1] The content of the letter is as follows:
"Gentlemen:
"This is to inform you that George A. Heft has twice recently attempted to proselyte employees of Burk and Associates.
"We strenuously object to this practice as being totally unethical, and we would appreciate it very much if you would inform Mr. Heft that you also object to such practices between engineering firms working for Jefferson Parish.
"I think it is needless to say that in our experience of over twenty years working for Jefferson Parish with numerous other engineers, among whom we include Fromherz, DeLaureal, Switzer, Krebs, Rene Harris, and others, Mr. Heft is the only one who has attempted to pirate personnel from Burk and Associates.
"Very truly yours, "BURK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS. "WILLIAM P. BURK, JR. PRESIDENT."