Gaines v. Wren
| Decision Date | 13 July 1960 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 7233. |
| Citation | 185 F. Supp. 774 |
| Parties | Ora E. GAINES v. Harry P. WREN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Scott Walters, Jr., East Point, Ga., for plaintiff Ora E. Gaines.
Charles D. Read, Jr., U. S. Atty., Slaton Clemmons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant Harry P. Wren.
The above captioned case is one in which plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the publication of an alleged libel. The action was filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, and was removed to this Court by the United States Attorney on the ground that the action "arises out of alleged acts of the petitioner as an officer of the United States of America acting under color of his office and the authority of the United States and in the official business of the United States."
It is alleged in the complaint that on or about the 28th day of August, 1959, defendant composed a letter addressed to Mr. Leland H. Waters, Jr., Executive Air Transportation Company, Inc., Box 742, Atlanta Air Station, Atlanta, Georgia, and that such letter "contained the following false and defamatory matter:
It is further alleged that the reference in said letter to "depot" was to the Atlanta General Depot, U. S. Army, Forest Park, Georgia, and that such alleged defamatory matter was delivered by United States mail to Mr. Leland H. Waters to be read by him and that "pursuant to defendant's malicious intent, said writing was read by said Leland H. Waters, Jr. and divers other persons." It is alleged that defendant in making the communication intended for it to mean that a hearing had already been held on the charge and that the same was reason for removal and not simply a charge against plaintiff which had not been adjudicated and that the persons to whom the words were communicated "understood the words to have said meaning"; that defendant knew the words were untrue and that in the publishing of same defendant acted with malice towards plaintiff.
Plaintiff further alleges that said defamatory matter imputed and implied that he was not a good and faithful employee; whereas plaintiff has always enjoyed a good reputation for fidelity to his employment. Plaintiff alleges that at no time after such publication has defendant retracted or corrected the same nor informed the addressee "that on a hearing on the merits of the charges brought against plaintiff, plaintiff was completely exonerated." Damages are sought in the sum of $50,000.
The defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the acts complained of "were performed by defendant as a part of his duties and within the scope of his employment as an officer and employee of the United States and thus are absolutely privileged," and this motion is now properly before the Court for determination under the Local Rules of this Court.
In support of its motion for summary judgment defendant submits certain documents which will hereinafter be referred to; an affidavit of plaintiff dated February 4, 1960, and an affidavit of Oliver C. Harvey, Brigadier General, United States Army. In his affidavit General Harvey deposes, as follows:
That the Atlanta General Depot is, and was on the 28th day of August, 1959, a military installation of the United States Army and that affiant was on that date Commanding General of such installation and had under his command the defendant who was a civilian employee of the United States and who was at the time the "Acting Depot Industrial Relations Officer." The affiant deposes that a part of defendant's duties as such officer was to represent affiant "on industrial relations matters in connection with outside agencies and the general public" and that this duty "included replying to inquiries from prospective employers for information pertaining to the employment record of depot employees or former employees."
Exhibit B is a copy of the reply to this communication dated the 28th day of August, 1959, containing the matter complained of by plaintiff, the complete text of such letter being as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kern v. Granquist
-
Steinberg v. O'CONNOR
...other agency or department which originally classified the material. Preble v. Johnson, 275 F.2d 275 (10th Cir. 1960); Gaines v. Wren, 185 F.Supp. 774 (N.D.Georgia 1960). It is further uncontradicted that all of the acts of the defendant relating to this case were fully ratified and approve......
-
Kern v. Granquist
...However, her right of recovery is based on the statute and regulations in question and under those I can find no theory of recovery." 185 F.Supp. 774. This court feels as did the trial judge, that this is an example of inequities that frequently exist in income tax laws and regulations when......