Hylton v. American Ass'n For Vocational Instructional Materials, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A94A1057,A94A1057 |
| Citation | 214 Ga.App. 635,448 S.E.2d 741 |
| Parties | , 94 Ed. Law Rep. 1005 HYLTON v. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS, INC. et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Bushnell & Lariscy, William C. Bushnell, Joseph E. Lariscy III, Athens, for appellant.
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Rebecca S. Mick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dennis R. Dunn, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Drew, Eckl & Farnham, Hall F. McKinley III, Douglas G. Smith, Jr., Atlanta, for appellees.
Richard M. Hylton appeals the grant of summary judgment to the defendants, American Association for Vocational Instructional Materials, Inc., Thomas A. Silletto, James McCully, Amon Herd, Alvin Halcomb, George W. Smith, Jr., James E. Wren, Dr. Chris J.B. Smit, and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Hylton's claims against these defendants for defamation and malicious interference with contract arose from the termination of his duties as executive director of the American Association for Vocational Instructional Materials, Inc. ("AAVIM").
The record shows AAVIM is a private, non-profit corporation intended to promote agricultural and vocational education; that Silletto, McCully, and Herd were members of AAVIM's executive committee; that Halcomb was a member of AAVIM's board of directors; that Smith and Wren are AAVIM employees; that Smit was Hylton's supervisor at the University of Georgia; and that Hylton had a contract of employment with the Board of Regents.
The record further shows Hylton first was hired as an AAVIM research and development specialist and, because of AAVIM's relationship with the University of Georgia, he also had the status of associate professor in the University's Department of Extension Education. In 1986, he was appointed to the position of executive director of AAVIM and director of the National Institute of Instructional Materials ("NIIM"). NIIM is a department of the University of Georgia's College of Agriculture which the University formed to administer AAVIM. Although employees of AAVIM were listed as employees of the University, costs of salaries and benefits were reimbursed by AAVIM. Further, all non-clerical employees of AAVIM had one-year employment contracts with the University System of Georgia.
In 1990, Hylton and others, including appellees Smith and Wren, were advised that their NIIM contracts would not be renewed for the 1991-1992 school year. Then in October 1990, following a meeting of AAVIM's board of directors at which a memorandum critical of Hylton's performance as executive director circulated, the board placed Hylton on administrative leave from his position as executive director of AAVIM and relieved him of his duties with AAVIM. Subsequently, Hylton was terminated as executive director, effective June 30, 1991.
Hylton later learned the memorandum that circulated at the meeting of the board had been prepared by defendants Smith and Wren on behalf of defendants Silletto, Herd, and McCully, the members of AAVIM's executive committee. Hylton contends the memorandum was defamatory and was designed to destroy his career and his professional reputation. Hylton alleges that the memorandum stated he was dishonest, questioned his professional reputation and performance, and called for his dismissal, and also alleges that circulation of the memorandum constituted malicious interference with his contractual relationship with the University of Georgia.
The record shows that after Hylton was placed on administrative leave as director of AAVIM, defendant Smit removed Hylton as the director of NIIM. The record also shows, however, that Hylton was director of NIIM only because he was the director of AAVIM and his responsibility as director of NIIM was to serve as executive director of AAVIM. Further, the record shows that AAVIM reimbursed the University for the salary paid Hylton as director of NIIM.
The record further shows that Hylton's contract with the University was for a one-year term, and that before the meeting of AAVIM's board of directors, Hylton had been informed the University had decided that after July 1, 1991, AAVIM's employees, except for Smith and Wren, would be employees of AAVIM, and not the University. Hylton was also informed that Smith and Wren would not be renewed by the University after the 1990-1991 school year. Further, by letter dated September 28, 1990, Hylton was advised that the University would not renew his contract for the 1991-1992 school year.
The record further shows that Hylton's contract for the 1990-1991 school year, and his earlier contracts with the University, contained a statement that the contract constituted the entire agreement between Hylton and the Board of Regents and that the contract could not be changed or modified other than by a writing signed by the parties; the contract also contained an acknowledgment by Hylton that he would not be re-employed unless a new contract was offered by the Board of Regents and accepted by him.
The record further shows that, even though Hylton was relieved of his duties as executive director of AAVIM in October 1990, he continued to receive his full salary until his contract expired at the end of June 1991.
Subsequently, Hylton filed suit against the defendants primarily asserting interference with his employment contract and defamation. After discovery, Smit and the Board of Regents ("the University defendants") filed a motion for summary judgment and the other defendants ("the AAVIM defendants") filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted both motions.
Regarding the University defendants' motion, the trial court ruled that Hylton had not established his claim of tortious interference with contract because, in fact, there was no interference with Hylton's contract rights since his contract was honored in full and because at all times pertinent to the action defendant Smit was acting as an agent of the University and thus was not a stranger to Hylton's contract with the University. Further, to the extent Hylton asserted a claim based upon any oral promises or modification of his written contract, the trial court found that this claim was precluded by the terms of Hylton's contract with the University, the parol evidence rule, and the statute of frauds.
The trial court found...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howerton v. Harbin Clinic, LLC
...to the employment relationship and could not be held liable for tortious interference); Hylton v. American Assn. For Vocational Instructional Materials, 214 Ga.App. 635, 638(2), 448 S.E.2d 741 (1994) (those with authority to supervise and evaluate plaintiff in his job and to terminate plain......
-
Slater v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States
...to the employment relationship." Lee v. Gore , 221 Ga. App. 632, 634, 472 S.E.2d 164, 167 (1996) (citing Hylton v. American Assn., Inc. , 214 Ga. App. 635 (2), 448 S.E.2d 741 (1994) ). "In addition, it must be shown that the alleged intermeddler acted maliciously and without privilege." Id.......
-
McLane v. Atlanta Market Center Management Co.
...by a stranger to the contract; (2) malicious intent to cause injury; and (3) resulting damage. See Hylton v. American Assn., etc., 214 Ga.App. 635, 638(2), 448 S.E.2d 741 (1994); Singleton v. Itson, 192 Ga.App. 78, 79, 383 S.E.2d 598 (1989)." Barnwell v. Barnett & Co., 222 Ga.App. 694, 695(......
-
Southern Co. v. Hamburg, A95A2745
...support of these assertions, defendants cite Zielinski v. Clorox Co., 215 Ga.App. 97, 99(2), 450 S.E.2d 222; Hylton v. American Assn., etc., 214 Ga.App. 635, 638(3), 448 S.E.2d 741; Cox Enterprises v. Bakin, 206 Ga.App. 813, 816(1), 426 S.E.2d651, and Armscorp of America v. Daugherty, 191 G......