Isabell v Travis Electric
| Decision Date | 13 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | 99-00052 |
| Parties | TIMOTHY E. ISBELL v. TRAVIS ELECTRIC COMPANY AND MILTON TRAVISIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 1999 Session Filed |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 97C-475
After Plaintiff resigned from his job and attempted to start his own competing business, his former manager informed a mutual client of the circumstances surrounding his resignation. Plaintiff sued his former employer and its service manager, alleging slander, libel, defamation, and tortious interference with contract. The trial court directed a verdict for Defendants, and Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the trial court misapplied the substantial truth doctrine, failed to apply the doctrine of implication, and was incorrect in its finding that no contract existed between Plaintiff and his new company's main client. Plaintiff also insists that, by failing to grant a new trial so that he could add an allegation of invasion of privacy, the court ignored the proper legal consequences arising from the disclosure of a confidential drug test. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court
Affirmed and Remanded
Christopher K. Thompson, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Shelley I. Stiles, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellant, Timothy E. Isbell.
Thomas C. Corts, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Travis Electric Company and Milton Travis.
PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., and WILLIAM B. CAIN, JJ., joined.
Timothy E. Isbell sued his former employer, Travis Electric Company, and its service manager, Milton Travis, alleging slander, libel, defamation, and tortious interference with contract.1 A jury was empaneled to hear the case. At the close of Plaintiff's proof, the trial court directed a verdict for TEC and Mr. Travis. We first review the facts as established by Plaintiff's proof.
Mr. Isbell worked as an electrician at TEC for approximately three years. Over the course of his employment, much of Mr. Isbell's work involved installing electrical cable at various First American Bank branches. During Mr. Isbell's third year of employment, TEC initiated drug testing at the request of its workers' compensation carrier. Mr. Isbell underwent his first test on February 6, 1996, and tested positive for marijuana. Mr. Isbell testified that when he came in to take the test, He admitted that he told a supervisor, in front of a secretary, that he would not pass the test that day. Mr. Isbell did fail that test. He was not disciplined for failing the test, but was told he could take a second test thirty days later, which he took and passed.
Mr. Isbell's marijuana use was known by his coworkers. He admitted that, prior to the first drug test, he had often used marijuana, that he had smoked marijuana in the presence of coworkers, and that he regularly smoked just prior to having an apprentice drive him to out-of-town jobs in company trucks. He also admitted to smoking marijuana in hotel rooms paid for by his employer while on out-of-town jobs. Further, on one occasion he helped a coworker purchase a sufficient amount of marijuana to resell. In addition, he assisted an employee of First American Bank in a purchase of marijuana.
In November 1996, two TEC employees purportedly told Mr. Travis that Mr. Isbell was using marijuana again. One employee had asked not to be assigned to go on an out-of-town job with Mr. Isbell because Mr. Isbell was using marijuana again and the employee didn't want to be around it. Another employee was assigned to go on that out-of-town job with Mr. Isbell. Upon his return, that employee told Mr. Travis that Mr. Isbell had smoked marijuana in the truck on the way to the job and in the motel while on the out-of-town assignment. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Travis told Mr. Isbell that he would no longer have access to his company truck, telephone, and pager. When Mr. Isbell pressed him about the reason for this action, Mr. Travis stated, "We've heard you're using that marijuana again." At that point, Mr. Isbell purportedly asked to take another drug test. Then he "stormed out" and went home for the day. When he returned, Mr. Isbell was reassigned to work at the company headquarters and received a decrease in his pay. At that time, Mr. Isbell quit. The day that he left TEC he again smoked marijuana, "just like someone would have a drink."
On Mr. Isbell's first or second day of his new employment, his employer, Harlan Electric, required him to take a drug test. He informed that employer that he probably wouldn't pass the test, but took it. Rather than wait for the results, he told Harlan Electric that he was taking a leave of absence while his wife had surgery and then did not return. He decided to set up his own company.
Around the day Mr. Isbell quit TEC, a representative of First American Bank, Johnny Dudley, called Mr. Travis in an attempt to locate Mr. Isbell to check on a project he had been working on for the bank. During that conversation, Mr. Travis informed Mr. Dudley that Mr. Isbell no longer worked for TEC. According to Mr. Dudley, Mr. Travis said that "Tim had failed to take a drug test and that they had took his responsibility of driving a vehicle away from him, and he had gotten mad and left the company." Mr. Dudley also testified that Mr. Travis "said that it was a policy of Travis to give each employee a drug test and that Tim had some problems earlier in the year before that and he had - he had kind of talked to him about it and then they had asked him to take another test and he refused it." When asked if Mr. Travis said that Mr. Isbell was asked to take a drug test in February of 1996, Mr. Dudley answered in the affirmative and stated that he was told that Mr. Isbell "had took a drug test and not passed it earlier." He later agreed that Mr. Travis
didn't tell . . . [him] basically anything other than, at one time, he'd [Mr. Isbell] flunked a drug test and that there was some suspicion that there might have been some further use and [TEC] took him off the truck and he quit.
In early December, Mr. Isbell formed Isbell Contracting Electric and started performing specific jobs for First American Bank. Just before Christmas, Mr. Travis visited a representative of First American Bank, Paul Carothers, to deliver a complimentary calendar. According to Mr. Carothers, Mr. Travis mentioned "that Tim had been taken off the road, brought back into the shop because of failing a drug test at the time he was still working for Travis." Mr. Carothers also recalled that:
Milton [Travis] brought up the subject of Timothy Isbell doing some work for First American. . . He mentioned that Tim had failed a drug test while at Travis Electric. As a result, Tim ha[d] been reassigned to the shop. My recollection of the story was that other employees traveling with him on out-of-town jobs complained of Tim using drugs in the company truck and while they were present in the motels at night. This was the cause for the drug test.
Mr. Carothers could not recall whether Mr. Travis informed him that Mr. Isbell had subsequently passed a drug test. He had heard that, but could not remember the source. Mr. Carothers stated that he had learned that Mr. Isbell had failed a drug test before talking to Mr. Travis and had previously known that Mr. Isbell had left TEC because of some drug problems that had surfaced. He stated that Mr. Isbell's marijuana use was "kind of already known." About a month after his discussion with Mr. Travis, Mr. Carothers sent an e-mail to his supervisor, Mr. Meacham, asking advice on whether to permit Mr. Isbell to do any work for them. The e-mail stated, in part:
Recently Tim Isbell surfaced as a contractor for cabling. Ameristar [a First American subsidiary or affiliate] has requested to use him as they have been very satisfied with his work. I talked to him and got a proposal for some standard pricing which is cheaper than Travis . . .
Enter Milton Travis. Milton came by to pay a courtesy call and brought Tim up in the conversation. He repeated an allegation (which Johnny Dudley had already told me about) that Tim had tested positive for drugs while with Travis. He wasn't fired, but was reassigned, which caused him to quit. I asked him whether he had documented proof which he could share with me. Of course he doesn't; privacy issues.
So, I'm in a quandry whether I should permit Tim to do any work for us or not. We have a much delayed initiative to do regional RFPs for cabling work, but in the meantime what should I do? And could Tim's company be considered for the RFP?
Mr. Meacham testified, He shared the issue with other managers, one of whom responded with other concerns. She told Mr. Meacham, She was in charge of managing the facility, and stated that she normally had knowledge of subcontractors and that the bank needed to fine-tune the policy. She stated her concerns in another e-mail about Mr. Isbell or any other contractor working for the bank without certain procedures being followed:
In response to the Tim Isabell [sic] question: we cannot have anyone work in the First American Center without obtaining landlord approval. Also, I am not comfortable having an uncertain number of contractors working on our systems. When something goes wrong,...
To continue reading
Request your trial