## Facts

- Marvin G. Luttrell, an employee of United Telephone System, Inc., sued the company for defamation.
- Luttrell alleged managerial employees made false statements accusing him of illegally taping telephone conversations.
- The alleged communications occurred internally: one employee reported the accusation to Luttrell’s supervisor; the supervisor relayed it to other supervisory employees.
- The petition alleged all speakers acted within the scope of their employment and the statements concerned Luttrell’s work conduct.
- No communication to anyone outside the corporation was alleged.
- The employer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6), arguing the petition did not plead “publication” to a third person.
- The trial court dismissed; Luttrell appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether internal communications among supervisory employees of the same corporation, made within the scope of employment about another employee’s work, constitute “publication” to a third person sufficient to state a defamation claim under Kansas law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6).
- The court held that intracorporate supervisory communications made in the course of corporate duties regarding an employee’s work do not constitute publication to a third person.
- Because Luttrell alleged only internal corporate communications, the petition failed to plead the publication element of defamation.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation requires, among other elements, a false and defamatory communication to a third person that harms reputation.
- A corporation may be liable for defamatory statements by its agents made within the scope of their authority, but only if the elements of defamation are satisfied.
- Communications among employees of the same corporate entity, acting within the scope and course of employment on corporate business, are treated as the corporation speaking to itself and therefore are not “publication” to a third person.

## Conclusion

Kansas does not treat intra-office communications among supervisory employees, made within the scope of employment about an employee’s work-related conduct, as “publication” for defamation; a petition alleging only such internal communications fails to state a claim.


Luttrell v. United Tel. Sys., Inc., 9 Kan. App. 2d 620, 683 P.2d 1292 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984)