## Facts

- Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company (C&NW) held a routine internal “brainstorming session” for employees to raise workplace problems and concerns; Richard John Lund did not attend.
- A manager, Ray Peterson, compiled notes from the session into a four-page memorandum with 85 numbered entries and posted it on a company bulletin board; copies were also distributed internally.
- One entry listed: “FAVORITISM, DICK LUND, SICK, MOVE-UPS, BROWN NOSE, SHIT HEADS.”
- After Lund complained, C&NW removed the posting; unauthorized copies were later reposted by coworkers and were again removed by the company.
- Lund alleged coworkers harassed him after the posting and that unknown persons twice put a pepper derivative in his coffee, causing emotional and physical symptoms and increased work absences.
- Lund sued C&NW for defamation and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to C&NW, and Lund appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the memorandum’s derogatory language about Lund was actionable defamation or constitutionally protected opinion.
2. Whether C&NW’s conduct and the alleged coworker actions supported a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Minnesota law.
3. Whether Lund satisfied Minnesota’s requirements for negligent infliction of emotional distress, including the “zone of danger” limitation and proof of severe distress.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for C&NW on all claims.
- The challenged language was nonactionable opinion when evaluated for specificity, verifiability, and context, and it was also protected by a qualified privilege for internal employer communications made on matters of shared business interest.
- Lund failed to present facts showing extreme and outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress sufficient for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Lund did not meet the “zone of danger” and severity requirements for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and the record did not adequately link the coffee incidents to C&NW under the governing standards.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation requires an assertion that can reasonably be understood as stating verifiable fact; loose epithets, insults, and value judgments—especially in a workplace complaint context—are generally protected opinion.
- Fact-versus-opinion analysis considers the precision of the language, whether it is objectively verifiable, and the social and situational context of the statement.
- Internal employer communications about workplace matters may be protected by a qualified privilege absent proof of malice.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct and proof of severe emotional distress; the threshold for “outrageousness” is high.
- Negligent infliction of emotional distress in Minnesota generally requires the plaintiff to be within a zone of physical danger and to show severe emotional distress with objective manifestation.

## Conclusion

The court held that the workplace memorandum’s disparaging reference to Lund was protected opinion (and independently privileged) and that the evidence did not satisfy Minnesota’s strict elements for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, warranting summary judgment for the employer.


Lund v. Chi. & Nw. Transp. Co., 467 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)