## Facts

- William Benassi was the general manager of Georgia-Pacific’s machinery construction division.
- During a 1978 business trip, Benassi was involved in a loud, profane dispute at a motel; his supervisor reprimanded him and warned that another incident could result in termination.
- During a 1979 business trip, Benassi and another employee went to a bar after dinner; a disturbance was later reported and Georgia-Pacific received an anonymous letter alleging Benassi was drunk and misbehaved.
- Georgia-Pacific terminated Benassi, relying in part on the anonymous letter and the prior warning.
- After the termination, Benassi’s successor held a meeting of over 100 division employees and stated that Benassi had a drinking problem and was fired for getting drunk and misbehaving in a bar.
- Benassi denied being drunk and presented evidence suggesting the anonymous report overstated his intoxication and conduct.
- Benassi sued for slander based on the internal statements, seeking general damages for reputational harm and special damages tied to difficulty obtaining comparable employment.
- The trial court ruled the statements were conditionally privileged as intra-corporate communications but sent to the jury whether the privilege was abused; the jury found for Benassi and awarded substantial damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Georgia-Pacific was entitled to a directed verdict because the internal statements were protected by a qualified privilege as a matter of law, such that no reasonable jury could find abuse of the privilege.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit special damages for employment-related losses to the jury, including proof that the statements caused Benassi’s period of unemployment.
3. Whether the damages-related jury instruction required reversal in light of the causation proof for special damages.

## Decision

- The court held that intra-corporate communications about the reasons for a discharge were subject to a qualified privilege.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Georgia-Pacific abused the privilege, including by relying on an anonymous accusation without adequate investigation and by publishing detailed, stigmatizing reasons to an arguably unnecessary audience.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to show the internal statements caused Benassi’s claimed period of unemployment; submitting that special-damages theory to the jury was error.
- The judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to damages.

## Legal Principles

- Employer communications to employees about personnel actions may be protected by a qualified privilege when made on a proper occasion, in good faith, and to recipients with a corresponding interest or duty.
- A qualified privilege may be lost by abuse, including when the publisher lacks reasonable grounds to believe the statement true or when publication is excessive in scope or audience.
- Special damages in defamation require evidence permitting a non-speculative causal link between the defamatory publication and the claimed economic loss; temporal correlation alone is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the defamation claim to proceed on the theory that a jury could find Georgia-Pacific abused its qualified privilege through unreasonable reliance on an anonymous report and overly broad internal dissemination, but it required a new damages trial because the record did not support a non-speculative finding that the statements caused Benassi’s claimed employment-related losses.


Benassi v. Georgia-Pacific, 62 Or. App. 698, 662 P.2d 760 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)