## Facts

- Jessica Cockram worked at a Journeys retail store owned by Genesco, Inc.
- While processing a customer return, Cockram entered a generic phone number into the register and selected an associated name entry that contained a racial slur; she printed and signed the receipt without noticing the slur and handed it to the customer.
- The slur had been previously entered into the store database by a former employee, Richard Hamill, without Cockram’s knowledge.
- The next day, the customer returned upset, creating a public disturbance at or near the store.
- Genesco terminated Cockram and issued a public statement to the media indicating an employee had entered “highly inappropriate statements” on a return form and that the employee had been terminated while the company continued investigating.
- Media coverage and online commentary connected the statement to the incident and portrayed the responsible employee as racist; Cockram alleged threats and severe personal disruption.
- After Hamill confessed, Genesco later issued a clarifying statement indicating the slur was entered by a former associate and that there was no reason to believe the cashier knew of it.
- Cockram sued for defamation and false light invasion of privacy under Missouri law; the district court granted summary judgment for Genesco on defamation and dismissed false light under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether Genesco’s public statements could reasonably be understood as “concerning” Cockram and as asserting or implying she intentionally entered or directed a racial slur toward a customer.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on falsity and Genesco’s substantial-truth defense given disputes about the statements’ “gist” and the public meaning attributed to them.
3. Whether Cockram was a private figure (negligence standard) or a limited-purpose public figure (actual malice standard) for purposes of fault.
4. Whether Cockram produced sufficient evidence for a jury to find reputational harm.
5. Whether Missouri recognizes a false light claim where the alleged wrong consists solely of defamatory-type statements.

## Decision

- Affirmed dismissal of the false light invasion of privacy claim.
- Reversed summary judgment on the defamation claim and remanded.
- Held that a jury could find the statements referred to Cockram and implied intentional racist conduct.
- Held that substantial truth was not established as a matter of law because the “sting” could be that Cockram was the wrongdoer, despite evidence the slur originated with a former employee.
- Treated Cockram as a private figure and held a jury could find Genesco negligent in issuing statements during an incomplete investigation.
- Held evidence of public reaction and threats created a triable issue on reputational harm.

## Legal Principles

- Under Missouri defamation law, liability may arise when a published statement of fact, in context, is reasonably understood to refer to the plaintiff and to convey a defamatory meaning.
- “Substantial truth” turns on the statement’s “gist” or “sting” as received by the audience; if the statement plausibly implies false wrongdoing by the plaintiff, truth may remain a fact question.
- Limited-purpose public-figure status requires that the plaintiff voluntarily inject herself into a public controversy; absent that, a private-figure plaintiff generally need show only negligence as to falsity.
- Reputational injury may be inferred from evidence that publication subjected the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, or public opprobrium, including reactions reasonably tied to the publication.
- Federal courts applying Missouri law will not recognize a standalone false light claim resting only on allegedly defamatory statements without clear adoption by Missouri’s highest court.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit allowed a Missouri defamation claim to proceed where a company’s initial crisis statement could be read as blaming a terminated cashier for intentionally racist conduct, but it declined to extend Missouri law to recognize a separate false light claim based on the same publications.


Cockram v. Genesco, Inc., 680 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2012)