Stringfield v. Iap World Serv. Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 March 2011
• Docket Number: No. CV 109–88.,CV 109–88.
• Citation: 784 F.Supp.2d 1378
• Parties: Jon STRINGFIELD, Plaintiff,v.IAP WORLD SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

784 F.Supp.2d 1378

Jon STRINGFIELD, Plaintiff,

v.IAP WORLD SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

No. CV 109–88.

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division.

March 28, 2011.

Brandon Kenneth Dial, Edward B. Stalnaker, Augusta, GA, for Plaintiff.Edmund J. McKenna, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Tampa, FL, Michael O. Eckard, Ogletree Deakins Law Firm, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.

ORDER

J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.

On June 23, 2009, Plaintiff Jon Stringfield (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Richmond County, Georgia, alleging that Defendant IAP World Services, Inc. (“Defendant” or “IAP”) committed libel and slander against him. (Doc. no. 1.) Defendant removed the action to this Court and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 21) and a motion to strike the affidavit of J. Patrick Arthur (doc. no. 51), which are both presently pending before the Court. The time for filing materials in opposition to these motions has passed, and the motions are now ripe for consideration.¹

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Employment with IAP and Subsequent Termination

IAP is an international corporation that provides general support services for military installations. In early 2007, IAP was the prime contractor at Fort Gordon, Georgia (“Fort Gordon”). (Stringfield Dep. at 41.) As the prime contractor, IAP served two major functions on base: public works and logistical support. ( Id. at 41–42.) IAP's public works function included, inter alia, the maintenance of buildings, the heating and cooling systems (“HVAC”), and the sewage treatment facility. ( Id.; Fulbright Dep. at 9 & 14.) In terms of logistical support, IAP's services included oversight of supply operations, vehicle maintenance, and transportation. (Stringfield Dep. at 41–42; Fulbright Dep. at 9 & 14.)

In August of 2007, IAP hired Plaintiff to serve as its operations manager at Fort Gordon. (Stringfield Dep. at 39 & 49.) Shortly after IAP hired Plaintiff, AKIMA, a native-Alaskan corporation that also provides support services for military installations, secured a cost-plus base operations contract ² directly with the Department of the Army as a result of its status as a minority-owned business; AKIMA then became the new prime contractor at Fort Gordon. (Fulbright Dep. at 10–13; Ramey Dep. at 10; Stringfield Dep. at 40–41.) AKIMA retained IAP as a subcontractor, which remained responsible for the public works portion of the contract; AKIMA took over logistical support. (Stringfield Dep. at 41–42.) Despite this division of responsibility, AKIMA maintained ultimate authority over the contract and held all rights regarding overall management. (Ramey Dep. at 14.)

1. Relevant Personnel

When AKIMA emerged as the prime contractor at Fort Gordon, nothing changed with regard to Plaintiff's position as IAP operations manager. (Stringfield Dep. at 39.) He continued working for and reporting to Rick Underwood (“Underwood”), who remained the on-site project manager for IAP. ( Id. at 50.) AKIMA, however, brought in its own, separate on-site project manager, John Fulbright, to oversee the entire Fort Gordon contract. (Fulbright Dep. at 9.)

Employees of IAP and AKIMA worked regularly with the individuals within the Department of the Army who were responsible for overseeing and coordinating the various activities covered by AKIMA's contract. These individuals included John Ramey (“Ramey”), the Director of Public Works at Fort Gordon. (Ramey Dep. at 9.) Ramey's responsibilities included the maintenance and repair of the post's real property assets. ( Id.) He supervised various employees, including Glenn Stubblefield (“Stubblefield”) and J. Patrick Arthur (“Arthur”). ( Id. at 35.) Arthur served as the Facilities Manager at Fort Gordon and was a “first responder” who had direct contact with contractors when an emergency occurred on post. ( Id.) He reported directly to Stubblefield, the Operations Maintenance Division Chief. ( Id.)

2. HVAC Failure

On or around June 14, 2008, an HVAC problem developed on-post at Building 24402, causing room temperatures to rise to nearly ninety degrees. ( Id. at 30–35.) Stubblefield informed Ramey of this problem, and Ramey received authorization to direct the contractors to purchase free-standing air conditioning units; Stubblefield then relayed the message to Underwood who passed it along to Plaintiff. ( Id.; Stringfield Dep. at 142.)

Plaintiff contacted Scott Pearson of A Chuck's Heating and Air Conditioning, an organization on the approved vendor list for the Fort Gordon project, who he referred to Underwood, the IAP employee with the authority to purchase the air-conditioners. (Stringfield Dep. at 145; Fulbright Dep. at 32.) Underwood purchased the air conditioners, and they were promptly placed on-post at Fort Gordon.³ (Stringfield Dep. at 90 & 141; Ramey Dep. at 36.)

3. Procurement Investigation, Plaintiff's Termination

On October 9, 2008, law enforcement officials arrested Michael Waters, IAP's supervisor of the heating and cooling plant and an individual who reported directly to Plaintiff, for solicitation and acceptance of a “kickback” while employed on-post with IAP. (Stringfield Dep. at 50 & 57; Doc. no. 57 at 85.) A month later, on November 19, 2008, the Procurement Fraud Branch of the Department of the Army sent IAP a show cause letter threatening the sanction of debarment from future contracts with agencies of the executive branch of the United States Government. (Doc. no. 47, Ex. 1 at 2.)

IAP then began an investigation into the entire Fort Gordon procurement process. (Stringfield Dep. at 109.) During the course of this investigation, IAP learned of the June 2008 $11,200.00 contract for the purchase of free-standing air conditioners that was not subject to competitive bidding. ( Id. at 140–41.) IAP also learned that Scott Pearson, the vendor who received the contract, was the husband of an IAP employee. ( Id. at 130.) IAP determined that this acquisition was in violation of company procurement policies and created, at the very least, the appearance of impropriety. ( Id.) By letter dated February 10, 2009, IAP terminated Plaintiff's employment. (Doc. no. 48, Ex. 1 at 2.)

B. Plaintiff's Libel and Slander Claims

In the letter terminating his employment, IAP stated the following:

As a result of an extensive investigation into the procurement activity at the Fort Gordon Installation Support Project (“FGIS”), IAP management has determined that your willful neglect of the procurement policies of IAP shall result in the immediate termination of your IAP employment.

This decision is based on the following investigative findings: (1) Your failure to follow IAP (“the company”) procurement policy, including your failure to recognize and avoid basic conflicts of interests, competition, favoritism, fraternization, and; your additional failure to adhere to the Company's ethics requirements. (2) Your poor judgment exercised as Facilities Operations Manager in the procurement of products from A Chuck's Air Conditioning. (3) Your admission that you would circumvent IAP procurement practices again if presented with with [sic] the same exigent procurement situation that was noted in your use and procurement approval of A Chuck's services.

Although your actions have placed the company at serious risk, including a current determination before the U.S. Army Procurement Fraud Branch that will govern IAP's continuing ability to perform on U.S. Government contracts, IAP provides you with the opportunity to immediately resign your employment. Should you choose not to resign, IAP will summarily terminate your employment, with prejudice.

( Id.)

According to Plaintiff, during the course of his termination, five different IAP employees reviewed this letter, including: Ruth Tomlin, a secretary in the Human Resources Department; Rick Underwood, the Fort Gordon project manager and Plaintiff's direct supervisor; Mark Gow, Human Resources Director; David Toops, Vice–President of Army Operations; and Jacquelin Humphries, the Human Resources Manager.⁴ (Stringfield Dep. at 64.) Plaintiff also contends that IAP orally published the contents of this letter to three individuals outside of IAP: Fulbright, AKIMA's project manager at Fort Gordon; Christy Harvey, his secretary; and Arthur, the Facilities Manager for the Department of the Army at Fort Gordon. ( Id. at 71–84.)

Plaintiff's slander claims arise, in part, from his pursuit of employment after his termination from IAP. Not long after Plaintiff's termination, Fulbright posted a project coordinator position for AKIMA. (Fulbright Dep. at 46.) Plaintiff applied for this position, but was informed by Fulbright that AKIMA could not hire Plaintiff due to his previous termination by IAP. ( Id. at 47.) Plaintiff contends Fulbright said that his bosses had been told by individuals at IAP that Plaintiff could not be trusted.⁵ (Stringfield Dep. at 77; Fulbright Dep. at 47–48.) The next day, Fulbright's secretary called to check on Plaintiff, and Plaintiff informed her of his previous conversation with Fulbright. (Stringfield Dep. at 84.) Fulbright's secretary responded by stating that she had already heard about the conversation, but Plaintiff is unable to say from whom she received this information. ( Id. at 84–85.)

The other basis for Plaintiff's slander claims arises from communications allegedly made to Arthur, the Facilities Manager at Fort Gordon and an employee of the Department of the Army. (Doc. no. 48, Ex. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit from Arthur in which Arthur states that, a short time after Plaintiff's termination, Chuck Dominey, a man who represented himself as an officer and agent of IAP, relayed to him the facts that formed the basis of Plaintiff's termination. ( Id.)

C. Pending Motions

Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment on April 9, 2010. (Doc. no. 21.) In its motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims against...