## Facts

- Susan Frank worked as an in-house attorney for Allstate Insurance Company for nearly 24 years.
- Allstate investigated Frank for using a company postage meter for personal mail totaling $9.95.
- Allstate terminated Frank for violating its ethics code and documented the conduct as “dishonesty” and akin to “embezzlement.”
- Frank admitted the personal postage use but alleged the “embezzlement” and “dishonesty” labels were disproportionate and pretextual.
- Frank did not allege Allstate communicated the termination reason to any external third party.
- Frank alleged she would be effectively required to repeat Allstate’s stated reason for termination to prospective employers and clients due to professional obligations as an attorney, and that this “compelled self-publication” satisfied defamation’s publication requirement under Pennsylvania law.

## Issues

1. Under Pennsylvania law, can a plaintiff satisfy the publication element of defamation through compelled self-publication of an employer’s stated reason for termination to prospective employers and clients?

## Decision

- The court granted Allstate’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the defamation claim.
- The court held Pennsylvania law does not recognize defamation liability based on compelled self-publication.
- Because Frank alleged no actionable third-party publication by Allstate, she failed to plead the publication element of defamation.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation under Pennsylvania law requires publication of a defamatory communication to a third party, meaning communication by the defendant (or its agent), not merely repetition by the plaintiff.
- Pennsylvania authority does not extend defamation liability to self-publication theories, including “compelled” self-publication in employment contexts.
- A plaintiff’s professional or ethical duties to disclose adverse employment information do not convert the plaintiff’s disclosure into publication by the defendant.
- Foreseeability that an employee may repeat an asserted reason for discharge does not, without defendant communication to a third party, satisfy Pennsylvania’s publication requirement.
- Limited internal employer communications related to personnel decisions, without dissemination outside the organization, do not establish the third-party publication required for defamation.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the defamation count because Pennsylvania defamation law requires publication by the defendant to a third party, and compelled self-publication by an employee—even an attorney claiming ethical pressure to disclose the stated termination reason—does not satisfy that element.


Frank v. Allstate Ins. Co., 32 F. Supp. 3d 569 (E.D. Pa. 2014)