469 So. 2d 141 - Bell v. Gellert

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 2002

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Thornton, David & Murray and Barry L. Davis and Carolyn A. Pickard and Kathleen O'Connor, Miami, for appellant.

¶2Daniel Gonzales Gellert, in pro. per.

¶3Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5We affirm the final summary judgment entered below in favor of the defamation defendant Daniel G. Gellert *142 based on the following, briefly stated, legal analysis. First, a defamation action arising out of a labor grievance complaint filed by an airline pilot against his airline employer, as here, may be maintained in a state court and is not pre-empted by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-188 (1976). See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.,394 U.S. 369, 89 S.Ct. 1109, 22 L.Ed.2d 344 (1969); Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America,383 U.S. 53, 86 S.Ct. 657, 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966). Second, the defamatory statements sued upon are absolutely privileged because they (a) are contained in the above-stated labor grievance complaint, (b) are relevant for defamation law purposes to the labor grievance complaint, W. Prosser & W.P. Keeton, The Law of Torts § 114, at 818 (5th ed. 1984); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 587 comment c (1977), and (c) are, therefore subject to an absolute privilege based on the better-reasoned authority in the country. Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 585 comment c, 587 comment f (1977); Annot., 60 A.L.R.3d 1041, 1053-54 (1974).

¶6Affirmed.