## Facts

- Rashad Elbeshbeshy worked for The Franklin Institute’s nuclear structural mechanics unit from January 3, 1984, to April 17, 1984, in a role involving both technical proposal drafting and submission/marketing to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
- He prepared two proposals, which were reviewed by his supervisor, Dr. Vu Con, and by Dr. Con’s supervisor, Dr. Salvatore Carfagno.
- Dr. Con considered the proposals to have substantive shortcomings; Elbeshbeshy disagreed. Dr. Carfagno did not assess the technical quality but viewed the working relationship as unpleasant.
- The Franklin Institute terminated Elbeshbeshy on April 17, 1984; his personnel record listed the reason as “lack of cooperation.”
- Elbeshbeshy alleged the stated reason was false and that the real motive was professional jealousy, and he sued for defamation based on the personnel-file notation.

## Issues

1. Whether recording “lack of cooperation” as the reason for discharge is capable of a defamatory meaning under Pennsylvania law.
2. Whether the statement, if conditionally privileged as an internal employment communication, could still support liability because evidence permitted a finding of abuse of the privilege.

## Decision

- The court denied the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the defamation claim.
- The court held that “lack of cooperation,” used as the stated ground for termination, was capable of a defamatory meaning.
- Assuming a conditional privilege applied, the court held that factual disputes existed on whether the privilege was abused (including whether the statement was pretextual and motivated by improper purpose), making summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- A statement is defamatory if it tends to harm reputation by lowering the person in the community’s estimation or deterring others from associating or dealing with the person.
- Whether a communication is capable of defamatory meaning is a question of law for the court at the threshold; if capable, the factfinder may determine defamatory meaning and related elements.
- Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; inferences and credibility choices favor the nonmovant.
- Pennsylvania recognizes a conditional (qualified) privilege for employer communications made in the course of employment administration to persons with a legitimate interest.
- A conditional privilege may be lost through abuse, including malice, improper purpose, or publication beyond those with a legitimate interest; when supported by evidence, abuse is generally for the factfinder.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the defamation claim to proceed because a personnel-file statement attributing a discharge to “lack of cooperation” could reasonably be read as harming professional reputation, and the record supported triable questions about whether any employment-related privilege was abused by a false or improperly motivated evaluation.


Elbeshbeshy v. Franklin Inst., 618 F. Supp. 170 (E.D. Pa. 1985)