Krenek v. Abel, 6053
| Decision Date | 07 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 6053,6053 |
| Parties | Raymond J. KRENEK et ux, Appellants, v. Albert C. ABEL, D/B/A Abel Air Conditioning, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This is an appeal by appellant-plaintiff from summary judgment she take nothing in a suit for libel against defendant.
Plaintiffs filed this suit seeking damages based upon allegedly libelous statements made maliciously against plaintiff Helen Krenek, to the Texas Employment Commission, in which defendant stated to the Employment Commission that plaintiff Krenek was discharged from her employment with defendant because she had "misappropriated funds" belonging to defendant while in his employ.
Plaintiff had worked for defendant as an apartment house manager. Defendant terminated her employment. She filed for unemployment compensation with the Texas Employment Commission. The Commission investigated the claim, sought information of defendant as to why plaintiff's employment was terminated, and defendant on the Commission's form stated that she was terminated because she had misappropriated funds. Plaintiff was turned down for unemployment benefits, and she thereafter filed this libel suit against defendant. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that statements attributed to him to the Employment Commission were privileged based on Article 5221b-9(h) VATS.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment plaintiff take nothing.
Thereafter plaintiff by amended pleading alleged that defendant, after terminating her employment, additionally libeled and slandered her by causing a "Vacate Notice" to be filed and served on her, which stated "Owner wants possession of property; disorderly conduct". This amended pleading was filed on April 19, 1978.
Defendant moved for partial summary judgment that plaintiff take nothing in suit for the additional libel alleged in the amended pleading on the ground it was barred by the one year statute of limitations as a matter of law. The trial court granted summary judgment plaintiff take nothing on the additionally plead libel; and thereafter rendered final judgment consolidating the two previous partial summary judgments, and decreed plaintiff take nothing as to both alleged causes of action.
Appellants-plaintiffs Krenek appeal on 2 points.
Point 1 asserts the trial court erred in granting a summary judgment on the basis of Article 5221b-9(h) where the libelous statements made to the Texas Employment Commission were made with malice.
Article 5221b-9(h) provides " * * * No statement whether oral or in writing made to the Commission or its employees in connection with the discharge of their duties under this Act shall ever be made the basis for an action for defamation of character".
Plaintiff had been employed by defendant. Her employment was terminated and she applied for unemployment benefits. The Commission investigated her claim and defendant advised the Commission on the Commission's form that her employment was terminated because she had misappropriated funds.
We hold that defendant's statements to the Employment Commission were absolutely privileged under Article 5221b-9(h) above.
An absolutely privileged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sahara Gaming v. CULINARY WKRS. UNION
...body is considering an employee's claim for unemployment compensation." Id. at 61, 657 P.2d at 104 (citing Krenek v. Abel, 594 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex.Civ.App.1980)). In a claim for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, this court extended the absolute privilege rule to ......
-
Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Witherspoon
...Co. v. Busbin, 242 Ga. 612, 250 S.E.2d 442 (1978); Sias v. General Motors Corp., 372 Mich. 542, 127 N.W.2d 357 (1964); Krenek v. Able, 594 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Civ.App.1980). See Greene v. Hoiriis, 103 So.2d 226 The statute is based on the long-standing common law rule that communications uttere......
-
Defamation in the workplace
...Inc., 659 S.W.2d 91, 93 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983), rev’d on other grounds , 669 S.W.2d 105 (Tex. 1984); Krenek v. Abel , 594 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1980, no writ); Reagan, 166 S.W.2d 909, 913 (“It is the occasion, not the communication, which creates or furnishes t......
-
Table of cases
..., 95 F.3d 674 (8th Cir. 1996), §21:7.H.1 Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp. , 456 U.S. 461 (1982), §§18:4.B.2.c, 18:7.G Krenek v. Abel , 594 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1980, no writ), §§29:4.C, 29:4.C.2 Krenik v. County of Le Sueur , 47 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1995), §23:3.A.3.a Krikelis v. V......
-
Defamation in the Workplace
...Inc., 659 S.W.2d 91, 93 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983), rev’d on other grounds , 669 S.W.2d 105 (Tex. 1984); Krenek v. Abel , 594 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1980, no writ); Reagan, 166 S.W.2d 909, 913 (“It is the occasion, not the communication, which creates or furnishes t......
-
Table of cases
..., 95 F.3d 674 (8th Cir. 1996), §21:7.H.1 Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp. , 456 U.S. 461 (1982), §§18:4.B.2.c, 18:7.G Krenek v. Abel , 594 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1980, no writ), §§29:4.C, 29:4.C.2 Krenik v. County of Le Sueur , 47 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1995), §23:3.A.3.a Krikelis v. V......