## Facts

- Mack Melancon worked as a shift engineer at the Hyatt Regency New Orleans and occasionally entered an unlocked laundry room to obtain rags.
- After missing “Regency Club” towels were discovered, Hyatt’s security director installed a hidden camera in the laundry room and later wired the lights to remain on.
- A videotape showed a person entering the laundry room at about 3:46 a.m., taking towels from a high shelf, and leaving.
- Security concluded the person was Melancon and showed the video to the laundry manager and a personnel representative; both identified the person as Melancon, while a security supervisor could not.
- Melancon was told he was suspected of taking towels, was terminated, and was not permitted to view the tape.
- Melancon denied theft and claimed coworkers learned he was fired for stealing towels; his wife asserted loss of consortium.
- A jury found Hyatt defamed Melancon and awarded damages to him and his wife; the trial court entered judgment and denied post-trial relief.

## Issues

1. Whether statements within the workplace that Melancon was fired for stealing towels constituted “publication” sufficient for defamation liability under Louisiana law.
2. Whether testimony by former employees recounting that other employees said Melancon was fired for stealing towels was inadmissible hearsay, and if admitted, whether it required reversal.
3. Whether the general damages and loss-of-consortium awards were excessive under Louisiana’s appellate review standards.

## Decision

- Liability for defamation and loss of consortium was affirmed.
- The trial court’s admission of employee statements about workplace communications was upheld as not reversible error.
- The damages awards were amended and reduced as excessive; the judgment was otherwise affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Louisiana defamation requires a false and defamatory statement, unprivileged publication to a third party, fault (at least negligence), and resulting injury.
- Internal corporate communications can satisfy “publication” when dissemination extends beyond those reasonably necessary to investigate and act on the matter.
- Out-of-court statements repeating an accusation may be admissible when offered to prove that the accusation was communicated and circulated (publication and scope), not to prove the truth of the accusation.
- A general damage award may be disturbed only for clear abuse of the factfinder’s “much discretion”; if abused, the appellate court reduces the award to the highest amount reasonably supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s finding that Hyatt defamed an employee by allowing an unproven theft accusation to circulate within the workplace, permitted rumor-style testimony to establish publication, and reduced the damage awards as an abuse of discretion while affirming liability.


Melancon v. Hyatt Corp., 589 So. 2d 1186 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991)