## Facts

- Four employees at a Wal-Mart store in Monticello, Kentucky were terminated in June and July 1995 for “unauthorized removal of company property” and “violation of company policy,” based on eating “claims candy” (damaged/open candy held for processing in a claims area).
- Wal-Mart maintained an “honesty” policy providing that dishonesty would result in immediate termination; the store manager also maintained a rule that claims-area items could not be eaten until recorded and only with permission.
- Termination paperwork identified the discharge reason as unauthorized removal of company property and policy violations.
- The employees alleged that management engaged in surveillance and accusatory termination interviews, and that managers made written and oral statements to others implying the employees were fired for “theft,” “stealing,” or other dishonest conduct beyond eating claims candy.
- Evidence included statements made to co-workers and others, including an assistant manager’s remark that there was “more to it” than claims candy but he “could not talk about it,” which the employees claimed implied false criminal misconduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted the employees’ intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrage) claim to go to the jury.
2. Whether the evidence supported an invasion-of-privacy claim predicated on Kentucky’s eavesdropping statutes (KRS Chapter 526).
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit defamation to the jury, including publication, defamatory meaning, falsity, and qualified privilege.
4. What remedy was required when a general damages verdict covered multiple tort theories, some of which failed as a matter of law.

## Decision

- Affirmed directed verdicts for defendants on intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy/eavesdropping.
- Reversed the Court of Appeals on defamation, holding the evidence was sufficient for the defamation claim to be submitted to the jury and for the jury’s liability determination to stand.
- Vacated compensatory and punitive damages because the verdict did not segregate damages by claim.
- Remanded for a new trial limited to determining damages attributable to defamation only.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict is appropriate only when there is a complete absence of proof on a material issue or no factual dispute on which reasonable jurors could differ; evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant.
- Kentucky’s outrage tort is narrowly confined to conduct that is extreme and intolerable; it is generally not available as a fallback where traditional tort remedies (such as defamation) address the alleged wrong.
- Employer statements that an employee was fired for “theft” or comparable dishonesty can constitute actionable defamation if a jury could find the assertion false and reputation-harming; insinuations implying undisclosed criminal misconduct may also be defamatory.
- Qualified privilege may protect good-faith workplace communications on matters of shared interest, but it can be defeated by abuse, including malice or publication beyond what the occasion reasonably requires; whether privilege applies and whether it was abused may be jury questions on the evidence.
- When damages are awarded in a single, undifferentiated verdict across multiple tort theories and some theories are later removed, the damages award must be set aside and retried on the remaining claim(s).

## Conclusion

The court eliminated the employees’ outrage and eavesdropping-based privacy theories but preserved their defamation claim based on statements implying theft, and it ordered a new trial limited to defamation damages because the original verdict did not separate damages by cause of action.


Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 151 S.W.3d 781 (Ky. 2004)