Hyland v. Raytheon Technical Services Co.

• Decision Date: 16 January 2009
• Docket Number: Record No. 080157.
• Citation: 277 Va. 40,670 S.E.2d 746
• Parties: Cynthia HYLAND v. RAYTHEON TECHNICAL SERVICES COMPANY, et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

670 S.E.2d 746

277 Va. 40

Cynthia HYLAND v. RAYTHEON TECHNICAL SERVICES COMPANY, et al.

Record No. 080157.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

January 16, 2009.

Elaine Charlson Bredehoft (Brittany J. Sakata; Charlson Bredehoft & Cohen, on briefs), Reston, for appellant.

John Charles Thomas (M. Christine Klein, Richmond; Robert J. Meyer, Michael P. Grady, Washington, DC; Craig J. Franco, Fairfax; Hunton & Williams, Richmond; Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Washington, DC; Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, Fairfax, on brief), for appellees.

Present: HASSELL, C.J., KEENAN, KOONTZ, KINSER, LEMONS, and MILLETTE JJ., and CARRICO, Senior Justice.

OPINION BY Justice BARBARA MILANO KEENAN.

In this defamation action, we consider whether the circuit court, upon our remand of the case, erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants after considering isolated factual segments of two allegedly defamatory statements.

In 2003, Cynthia L. Hyland brought several claims against her former employer, Raytheon Technical Services Company (Raytheon) and its president, Bryan J. Even. In the claims involved in this appeal, Hyland asserted that her supervisor, Even, made certain defamatory statements concerning Hyland's job performance. Raytheon and Even filed grounds of defense asserting, among other things, that Hyland was not entitled to damages because the alleged statements were true.

The case proceeded to a jury trial. At the trial, the evidence showed that Hyland worked for Raytheon for about 21 years and eventually became senior vice president and general manager of a certain division in the company.

In 2000, Hyland's division lost its bid for a large government contract. Despite this loss, Even provided Hyland with a positive job performance evaluation.

In 2002, Hyland's division lost another large government contract bid. After this loss, Even reorganized Raytheon and appointed Hyland as senior vice president and general manager of a larger business unit, which was comprised of Hyland's former division and two additional units.

Raytheon later hired a consulting firm to conduct assessments of the job performance of certain executive-level employees. As part of these assessments, Hyland provided both positive and negative comments about Even's leadership skills. Although the consulting firm had assured Hyland that her comments would be kept confidential, Even later learned about Hyland's critical remarks. At the time of Hyland's next performance evaluation, Even for the first time rendered a negative assessment of Hyland's job performance. Even later terminated Hyland's employment.

During the trial, the circuit court denied the motions to strike raised by Raytheon and Even (collectively, Raytheon) and submitted Hyland's defamation claim to the jury on five allegedly defamatory statements. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Hyland, and the circuit court later entered final judgment awarding Hyland $1,850,000, which included $350,000 in punitive damages.¹

In Raytheon's appeal of that judgment (the first appeal), we held that only two of the five statements submitted to the jury were actionable for defamation, and that the remaining three statements were not actionable because they were statements of opinion that could not be proved true or false. Raytheon Tech. Servs. Co. v. Hyland, 273 Va. 292, 641 S.E.2d 84 (2007). We concluded that a new trial was required because the jury instructions permitted a verdict in favor of Hyland on any one of the five statements, and we were unable to determine whether the jury based its award in part or in whole on the non-actionable statements of opinion that it erroneously was permitted to consider. Id. at 306, 641 S.E.2d at 92.

The first statement that we held actionable (the first statement) was:

Cynthia lead [sic] [Raytheon] in the protest of the FAA's evaluation selection process for the TSSC contract and through a difficult procurement for the TSA, both of which demanded her constant attention. These visible losses created significant gaps in our strategic plans and in her business unit financial performance.

Id. at 304, 641 S.E.2d at 91. We concluded that this statement was actionable for defamation because it was subject to empirical proof. Id. We explained that although the adjective "significant" may be a matter of opinion, the operative part of the statement addressed Hyland's responsibility for the losses, not the size of the losses. Id. at 305, 641 S.E.2d at 91.

The second statement that we held actionable (the second statement) was:

Cynthia and her team met their cash goals, but were significantly off plan on all other financial targets including Bookings by 25%, Sales by 11.5%, and profit by 24%.

Id. at 304, 641 S.E.2d at 91. With regard to this statement, we explained that "[w]hether the business unit missed its goals by the stated percentages is a fact that may be proved true or false." Id. We also stated that the word "significantly" in the first phrase is defined by certain percentages and is "not merely the view of the writer." Id. Accordingly, we set aside the jury verdict and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial on the claim of defamation limited to consideration of these two statements in their entirety. Id. at 306, 641 S.E.2d at 92.

On remand in the circuit court, Raytheon filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the two statements that were the subject of our remand were not defamatory because they were true. Raytheon argued that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding those statements, because Hyland had acknowledged the truth of the statements before the first trial in her response to Raytheon's request for admission.

Hyland opposed the motion for summary judgment and argued that several portions of the two statements at issue were false and were sufficiently misleading to constitute defamation. She also contended that in remanding the case for a new trial, this Court necessarily had rejected Raytheon's contention that she had admitted the truth of the statements.

The circuit court granted Raytheon's motion for summary judgment. In a letter opinion, which was incorporated by reference in the circuit court's final judgment order, the circuit court held that the two statements were true as a matter of law.

With regard to the first allegedly defamatory statement, the circuit court held that the "first factual component" of that allegedly defamatory statement is "[w]hether Hyland led the protest of the TSS contract award and the TSA procurement and was responsible for `these visible losses.'" The circuit court concluded that this "first factual component" was true based on Hyland's admission in her response to Raytheon's request for admissions that she "oversaw the efforts of the proposal team's support to the [TSS] protest," and that she was the "Proposal Manager" in charge of acquiring the TSA contract. The circuit court concluded that "[a]s the senior executive on both projects, she is ultimately responsible for the company's failure to acquire the contracts."

The circuit court then addressed what it referred to as the "second factual connotation" of the first allegedly defamatory statement. The circuit court identified this segment of the statement as being whether "losses from those projects created gaps in the company's plans and the financial performance of business units which she oversaw." The circuit court concluded that Hyland admitted in her responses to Raytheon's request for admission that the loss of the TSS contract "created a financial shortfall," that the TSA contract "would have reduced the financial challenge," and that the loss of the TSA contract "left a gap in sales revenue." Thus, the circuit court held that "the second factual component of the first allegedly defamatory statement is true." The circuit court further held that the question whether this "gap" was "significant" was a matter of opinion as defined by this Court in the first appeal.

The circuit court next identified "the factual component of the second allegedly defamatory statement" as "[w]hether the business unit missed its goals by the stated percentages." The circuit court held that the "factual component of the statement is not whether Ms. Hyland was to blame for all of the division's losses for 2002," but was "whether the division, in fact, incurred losses to the extent Mr. Even indicated." Referring to Hyland's counsel's argument before this Court in the first appeal, the circuit court held that Hyland conceded that Even's characterization of the extent of the losses for 2002 was correct. Thus, the circuit court held that "[t]he second allegedly defamatory statement is true."

Hyland appeals from the circuit court's award of summary judgment in favor of Raytheon. She contends that the circuit court erred by failing to consider each allegedly defamatory statement as a whole. Hyland contends that this error resulted from the circuit court's misinterpretation of our opinion in the first appeal, which resulted in the circuit court removing from consideration any words in the statements that manifested an opinion and any inferences or implications arising from each statement considered as a whole.

In response, Raytheon contends that the circuit court accurately applied our directives regarding the allegedly defamatory statements that we remanded for further proceedings. Raytheon argues that Hyland admitted "the limited factual portions" of the two allegedly defamatory statements and that, therefore, the circuit court properly awarded summary judgment in Raytheon's favor. We disagree with Raytheon's arguments.

Generally, under our common law, a private individual asserting a claim of defamation first must show that a defendant has published a false factual statement that concerns and harms the plaintiff or the plaintiff's reputation. See WJLA-TV v. Levin, 264 Va. 140, 152-54, 564 S.E.2d 383, 390-91 (2002); The...