After appellant-plaintiff’s employment with Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company was terminated, he filed suit againstj appellee-defendants and alleged that they had tortiously interfered with his employment contract. The case was tried before a jury. Af *79 the close of appellant’s evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of; all appellees. It is from the grant of the motions for directed verdict that appellant brings this appeal.
Construed in the light most favorable to appellant, the evidence, insofar as it is relevant to an action for tortious interference with contractual relations, is as follows: After being placed on six-months’ probation for having failed to complete his paper work in a timely manner, appellant requested that additional secretarial help be provided to him. In response to that request, appellee Herrington was hired. Although she was employed to assist appellant, appellee Herrington was not under his supervisory authority. An atmosphere of tension quickly developed between appellant and appellee Herrington. This clash of personalities was a factor in their superiors’ increasing impatience with the overall situation in the office. The presence of employees’ family members in the office was another. Appellant was eventually placed on indefinite probation and informed that family members of employees were not permitted in the office and that, in the event his family business caused any further disruptions of his official business, his services would be immediately terminated. Subsequently appellant’s wife came to the office to assist him with his paper work, as she had previously done. Appellee Herrington complained about the presence of appellant’s wife in the office and stated that she neither needed nor wanted his wife interfering in her work. Although appellant had allowed his wife to return to the office in violation of his earlier instructions, he was not immediately terminated but was offered a transfer to another office at a lower-level position. Appellant rejected this transfer offer and his employment was then terminated.
“ ‘ “The fact that employment is at will and that the employer is free from liability for discharging an employee does not carry with it immunity to a third person who, without justification, causes the discharge of the employee. . . .” [Cit.]’ [Cit.]”
Favors v. Alco Mfg. Co.,
Several appellees are the directors of the local Farm Bureau who participated in the decision to discharge appellant. As to them, the undisputed evidence shows that their participation in appellant’s discharge occurred within the scope of their supervisory authority and in the course of their employment.
Henson v. American Family Corp.,
As to appellee Herrington, appellant urges that she, as a third party, tortiously interfered with his employment contract by setting in motion, for purely personal reasons, the machinery which led to his discharge. See
Favors v. Alco Mfg. Co.,
supra at 484 (4). In
Favors,
however, the tortious interference was accomplished by the third party’s independently wrongful act of making a false statement about a co-employee. It is undisputed that appellee Herrington made no false statements about appellant. Appellant’s discharge was the result of his wife’s unauthorized presence at the office. Appellee Her-rington’s report of this fact was, without dispute, truthful. Likewise, none of appellee Herrington’s prior statements about appellant was shown to be false. Indeed, most, if not all, of appellee’s statements concerning appellant were mere expressions of her personal opinion. Those opinions were certainly critical of appellant’s work and there was undoubtedly a personality conflict as between her and appellant. However, as we held in
Kornegay v. Mundy,
With regard to the remaining appellees, a directed verdict was likewise correctly granted in their favor. Although interference with contractual relations may occur by means of a conspiracy,
Nottingham v. Wrigley,
Judgment affirmed.