RichmondVA
30 Mar 2004, 03:13 PM
A story that starts out as promising as this:
Steele-Inman claimed contest promoters and managers of the Pink Pony kicked her out of the pageant on trumped-up charges of cheating after she refused to submit to club owner Galardi's sexual demands, including a request to slurp whipped cream off her breasts at a golf tournament.
devolves into this:
Johnson wrote for the panel that they would affirm the verdict if "any evidence" supported it. But they found that the corporation that owned the nightclub could not be found liable for the alleged statements of Pepper because there was no evidence that he was expressly directed to make them.
Steele-Inman's lawyers argued that Pepper was the "personal representative" of Galardi, the owner of the corporation, but the panel held that the doctrine of "respondeat superior," -- which holds employers liable for their workers' misdeeds -- does not apply in slander cases.
The court then agreed with Pepper's argument that even if he did make slanderous statements, they were privileged because they were made between two groups doing business together.
The pageant official, Johnson wrote, "had reason to be advised of allegedly improper acts of a contestant in the parties' pageant." Galardi v. Steele-Inman, No. A03A2565 (Ct. App. Ga. March 24, 2004).
Steele-Inman had claimed being thrown out of the contest hurt her chances to make lucrative business deals in the future, but the court found that there was no direct evidence that the defendants had contact with any entities that refused to hire her. Thus, they added, the tortious interference claim failed.
Steele-Inman claimed contest promoters and managers of the Pink Pony kicked her out of the pageant on trumped-up charges of cheating after she refused to submit to club owner Galardi's sexual demands, including a request to slurp whipped cream off her breasts at a golf tournament.
devolves into this:
Johnson wrote for the panel that they would affirm the verdict if "any evidence" supported it. But they found that the corporation that owned the nightclub could not be found liable for the alleged statements of Pepper because there was no evidence that he was expressly directed to make them.
Steele-Inman's lawyers argued that Pepper was the "personal representative" of Galardi, the owner of the corporation, but the panel held that the doctrine of "respondeat superior," -- which holds employers liable for their workers' misdeeds -- does not apply in slander cases.
The court then agreed with Pepper's argument that even if he did make slanderous statements, they were privileged because they were made between two groups doing business together.
The pageant official, Johnson wrote, "had reason to be advised of allegedly improper acts of a contestant in the parties' pageant." Galardi v. Steele-Inman, No. A03A2565 (Ct. App. Ga. March 24, 2004).
Steele-Inman had claimed being thrown out of the contest hurt her chances to make lucrative business deals in the future, but the court found that there was no direct evidence that the defendants had contact with any entities that refused to hire her. Thus, they added, the tortious interference claim failed.