## Facts

- William W. Agriss worked as a truck driver for Roadway Express, Inc. and served as a Teamsters shop steward at Roadway’s Tannersville, Pennsylvania terminal.
- After returning from a run on December 21, 1979, Agriss was directed to his foreman and given a written “warning letter” stating he had “opened company mail” in violation of company policy.
- The letter alleged he opened company mail containing payroll checks; it was placed in his personnel file and routed to multiple managerial employees and to a union representative as part of internal procedures and the grievance process.
- Agriss denied the accusation and testified that, in context, the charge suggested dishonesty and possible criminal conduct, harming his standing for integrity and trustworthiness.
- While Agriss was on vacation and after his return, the accusation circulated among employees and union personnel, who questioned him about it.
- Agriss sued Roadway for libel based on the warning letter and its dissemination.

## Issues

1. Whether accusing an employee of “opening company mail” was capable of a defamatory meaning.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a finding that Roadway published the accusation beyond any conditional privilege for internal business communications.
3. Whether a libel plaintiff in Pennsylvania must plead and prove special damages (pecuniary loss) to recover.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the order refusing to remove the compulsory nonsuit and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the statement was capable of a defamatory meaning and should have been submitted to the jury on how it was understood in context.
- The court held the publication question was for the jury because the record could support a finding of dissemination beyond privileged, need-to-know recipients.
- The court held the trial court erred in requiring proof of special damages; reputational injury may support recovery in libel without specific pecuniary loss.

## Legal Principles

- In reviewing a compulsory nonsuit, the plaintiff receives the benefit of all favorable evidence and reasonable inferences; nonsuit is proper only where liability is clearly absent as a matter of law.
- Whether a communication is capable of defamatory meaning is a question of law for the court; if capable, the jury determines whether it was understood as defamatory.
- A statement is defamatory if it tends to harm reputation by lowering the person in the estimation of the community or deterring others from associating or dealing with the person.
- Corporate communications may be protected by a conditional privilege when made in the ordinary course of business to persons with a legitimate interest, but the privilege may be lost through excessive publication or improper motive.
- In Pennsylvania libel actions, recovery does not depend on pleading or proving special damages; compensable harm includes injury to reputation, and rigid reliance on “libel per se/libel per quod” labels is disfavored where reputational harm is shown.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Agriss’s libel claim because the accusation of “opening company mail” could reasonably be read as impugning his honesty, the scope of publication and any privilege were for the jury, and Pennsylvania law permits recovery for proven reputational injury without proof of special pecuniary loss.


Agriss v. Roadway Express, Inc., 483 A.2d 456 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)