## Facts

- William A. Denny worked as an attorney for Koehring Company from 1954 until June 1969, when he left to enter private practice; he also owned Koehring shares.
- Orville R. Mertz was an executive at Koehring and later its chief executive officer.
- Before December 1975, certain shareholders, including Denny, criticized Mertz’s performance to Koehring’s board.
- Around December 5, 1975, Mertz was terminated as CEO.
- A business magazine published an article about the management change that attributed to Mertz a statement implying Denny had been “fired” and then “harassed” Mertz.
- Denny alleged the “fired” statement was false because he had resigned, and that the publication harmed his reputation as an attorney.
- Denny sued Mertz (for making the statement) and the publisher (for printing it) for libel.

## Issues

1. On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, whether an allegedly false statement that an attorney was “fired” is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning to ordinary readers.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the order denying both defendants’ motions to dismiss.
- The court held that an alleged false statement that an attorney was “fired” is capable of being understood in a defamatory sense.
- Because the challenged language could reasonably be read to harm Denny’s reputation, the complaint stated a claim and the action could proceed.

## Legal Principles

- In testing a defamation complaint on a motion to dismiss, the court assumes the pleaded facts are true and asks only whether the statement is capable of a defamatory meaning.
- A statement is capable of defamatory meaning if reasonable people could understand it as tending to lower the person’s reputation in the community or deter others from associating or dealing with the person.
- Describing a professional (such as an attorney) as having been “fired,” if false, can reasonably imply unsatisfactory performance or misconduct and thus may be defamatory, even if the term might sometimes be used loosely.
- Context matters, but the fact that a publication may be critical of someone else does not eliminate the potential defamatory meaning of a specific statement about the plaintiff.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the libel claims to go forward, concluding that falsely stating an attorney was “fired” could reasonably be understood as damaging to professional reputation and therefore sufficiently defamatory to survive dismissal at the pleading stage.


Denny v. Mertz, 84 Wis. 2d 654, 267 N.W.2d 304 (Wis. 1978)