Wells v. Shop Rite Foods, Inc., 72-3011 Summary Calendar.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72-3011 Summary Calendar.,72-3011 Summary Calendar.
• Parties: Alton R. WELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHOP RITE FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

474 F.2d 838 (1973)

Alton R. WELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHOP RITE FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 72-3011 Summary Calendar.^*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 1, 1973.

John H. Chambers, Arlington, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Lawton G. Gambill, Fort Worth, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

Before WISDOM, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This defamation suit was brought by an ex-employee against his former employer, a Texas corporation. A jury returned answers to special interrogatories upon which the District Court entered judgment for defendant. We affirm.

In September of 1970, defendant Shop Rite Foods, Inc., a retail grocery chain in Texas, began an investigation into suspected thievery at its Grand Prairie, Texas, warehouse. Plaintiff Wells, a management-level supervisory employee, was instructed to inspect lunch boxes and packages belonging to employees leaving the warehouse. Additionally, Shop Rite employed a private detective agency, Denco Security Systems, to take written statements from suspected employees and to examine those employees with a polygraph.

Plaintiff Wells was interrogated by Denco on October 5, 1970, and later that day was temporarily suspended from employment at a private conference with his supervisor. On October 7, 1970, Wells was given a polygraph examination at Denco's Dallas office. No one from Shop Rite was present at this examination. Several weeks later Wells was permanently discharged.

Wells alleged that he was slandered by both the acts and the words of one of defendant's management personnel who was found to have told a union steward that Wells was fired for stealing.

On appeal, Wells raises three points of error. He argues that the District Court erred (1) in refusing to submit to the jury the issue of whether Shop Rite's acts slandered him by falsely accusing him of theft, (2) in excluding the testimony of a witness, and (3) in improperly framing one of the special interrogatories. We perceive no error.

(1) As to Wells' first contention, the District Court correctly refused to give this charge:

"Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the posting of supervisory employees of Defendant Shop Rite Foods, Inc. at exits from Defendant\'s Warehouse to check lunch boxes and packages of employees leaving the warehouse, and the employment of Denco Security Systems to investigate reported acts of theft, and the taking of written statements from various employees of defendant Shop Rite Foods, Inc. by Denco Security Systems, and the polygraphic examination by Denco Security Systems of certain employees of Defendant Shop Rite Foods, Inc. and the subsequent discharge of the individuals selected for polygraphic examination, taken together would lead a reasonably prudent individual to believe that Defendant Shop Rite Foods, Inc. was accusing all of such discharged individuals of theft?

ANSWER — `YES\' or `NO\'"

These "acts," standing together, would not support a jury finding of slander. The mere fact of checking exiting employees shows only that Shop Rite was concerned with preventing thefts. Moreover, Wells, as a supervisory employee, performed the inspections, and was never himself inspected, so Shop Rite\'s trust in him was plainly evident to all. Similarly, the employment of Denco to investigate reported acts of theft, and Denco\'s interrogations and polygraph examinations, focused no attention on Wells. All that was known to the warehouse workers was that reported thievery was under investigation. No one knew who was being investigated. Finally, Wells\' discharge, even when viewed

...