## Facts

- Allan D. “Rick” Zinda applied for employment at Louisiana Pacific Corporation (L‑P) in 1983 and completed an employment application and medical history form.
- On the medical form, Zinda answered “No” to questions about back trouble, back injury or disability, fractures or broken bones, and back X‑rays, but noted a past hospitalization for “fall off roof.”
- Before working for L‑P, Zinda had fallen through waferboard on his garage roof (a product manufactured by L‑P) and sustained multiple injuries.
- After about a year at L‑P’s Hayward, Wisconsin plant, Zinda sued L‑P in products liability, alleging negligent manufacture of the waferboard and claiming permanent disability from the earlier fall.
- L‑P compared Zinda’s lawsuit allegations with his medical form, concluded there were inconsistencies, suspended him, and terminated him.
- Following a workplace practice of reporting personnel changes, L‑P published a notice in the plant newsletter stating: “Terminate Al Zinda Falsification of Emp. forms.”
- The newsletter was made available to employees in the plant lunchroom; employees often removed copies from the workplace, and a copy circulated to a local hospital where it was read by co-workers of Zinda’s wife.
- Zinda amended his pleadings to add claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, and wrongful discharge, and sought punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Zinda established a prima facie claim for invasion of privacy based on publication of the stated reason for discharge.
2. Whether the newsletter statement was conditionally privileged as to defamation and invasion of privacy under a common-interest privilege.
3. Whether any conditional privilege was abused, and whether abuse could be decided as a matter of law or had to be decided by the jury.
4. Whether the damages instructions were erroneous (including treatment of refusal to retract) and whether a new trial on damages was required.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Zinda established a prima facie invasion-of-privacy claim based on the workplace publication.
- The Court held the newsletter publication was conditionally (qualifiedly) privileged for both defamation and invasion of privacy due to a common interest between employer and employees in personnel matters.
- The Court held abuse of the conditional privilege was a jury question on the record presented.
- The Court ordered a new trial limited to damages because the jury instructions on damages were improper, including permitting the jury to consider refusal to retract in a manner that could inflate compensatory damages.
- The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial on damages.

## Legal Principles

- Public disclosure of private facts may be actionable where the disclosure is highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate public concern; dissemination to a broad workplace audience may satisfy the publicity element.
- Employer communications to employees about personnel actions may be protected by a common-interest conditional privilege.
- A conditional privilege is lost if abused, including by knowingly or recklessly publishing false information, publishing beyond the scope of the shared interest, or using unnecessarily defamatory language; whether abuse occurred is generally for the jury when the evidence permits competing inferences.
- Damages instructions must align with the proper category of damages; treating refusal to retract as a basis for increasing compensatory damages can require retrial on damages even when liability stands.

## Conclusion

The court sustained potential liability for defamation and invasion of privacy arising from a stigmatizing termination notice, but held the publication was conditionally privileged and that privilege abuse was for the jury; it nonetheless required a new trial on damages because erroneous instructions risked tainting the compensatory award.


Zinda v. La. Pac. Corp., 149 Wis. 2d 913, 440 N.W.2d 548 (Wis. 1989)