## Facts

- Dr. Kwan-Sa You, a research scientist at Duke University, worked under supervisor Dr. Charles R. Roe; their relationship deteriorated in 1984–85.
- Roe terminated You by letter, asserting You had stopped performing responsibilities, resisted deadlines, and refused to provide “recipes” needed for laboratory reagents.
- During internal employment meetings and communications, Roe and other Duke personnel discussed You’s job performance and mental condition; You alleged defamatory statements and reputational harm.
- You alleged the written termination letter and related writings defamed him in his profession and contributed to events leading to his involuntary psychiatric commitment.
- You sued Roe, other individuals, and Duke University for multiple claims, including breach of contract, malicious interference with contract, slander, libel, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, medical malpractice, and false imprisonment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims except certain mental-health-related claims against a physician; You appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether partial summary judgment disposing of most claims was immediately appealable as affecting a substantial right.
2. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on slander based on lack of falsity and qualified privilege for workplace communications absent evidence of actual malice.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on libel where a termination letter arguably impeached You in his profession and evidence created fact disputes on falsity and actual malice.
4. Whether individual defendants could be liable for malicious interference with You’s employment relationship despite being institutional “insiders,” and whether the record showed lack of justification or malice.
5. Whether summary judgment was proper on malicious prosecution and abuse of process for failure to produce evidence of required elements.
6. Whether Duke University was entitled to summary judgment on medical malpractice and false imprisonment claims arising from involuntary commitment procedures.

## Decision

- The court held the appeal was proper because the partial summary judgment orders affected a substantial right.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on breach of contract, malicious interference with contract, slander, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process.
- The court vacated summary judgment and remanded on libel, concluding the record raised genuine issues of material fact as to falsity and actual malice sufficient to defeat qualified privilege.
- The court vacated summary judgment and remanded on Duke University’s liability for medical malpractice and false imprisonment, finding unresolved factual questions regarding Duke’s role and compliance with statutory safeguards governing involuntary commitment.

## Legal Principles

- Partial summary judgment may be immediately appealable when it is final as to adjudicated matters or affects a substantial right.
- Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
- Employment-related communications made in good faith between persons with corresponding interests or duties are protected by qualified privilege; the privilege is defeated by evidence of actual malice (spite, ill-will, or knowing/reckless falsity).
- Written statements that impeach a person in a trade or profession can constitute libel per se; where evidence supports disputes over falsity or malice, libel claims should proceed to trial.
- For malicious interference with contract, an internal actor may face liability in theory, but actions taken within legitimate business authority are generally justified absent evidence of malice or lack of justification.
- Malicious prosecution and abuse of process require proof of specific elements; speculative allegations of improper motive are insufficient to avoid summary judgment.
- Institutional participation in, or responsibility for, involuntary commitment procedures may support tort liability, including false imprisonment or negligence, where statutory safeguards are not conclusively shown to have been satisfied.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of most employment-related tort and contract claims, but reinstated the libel claim based on disputed facts surrounding the termination letter and reinstated claims against the university tied to possible noncompliance and responsibility in the involuntary commitment process.


You v. Roe, 387 S.E.2d 188 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990)