In a recent ruling, without precedence from the S.C. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court relied on cases from other states in holding that the discovery rule does not extend to libel and slander claims; rather, the two-year statute of limitations begins upon utterance.
In Meisner v. ZymoGenetics, Inc., plaintiff Rhonda Meisner, a former surgical sales manager working for the Seattle-based pharmaceutical company, was fired in 2010 for her “pattern of questionable behavior” after officials said that they received numerous complaints about her and that key accounts refused to work with her anymore.
In her claim, filed in 2012,Meisner alleged age and religious discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment and a violation of the S.C. Payment of Wages Act. Meisner claims she was doomed for failure in a “boy’s club” atmosphere.
After learning of alleged statements made by a coworker that she believes helped lead to her firing, Meisner filed a motion in October 2013 to amend her claim and include slander, but the court found the allegation futile and time-barred.
The comment in question was made by coworker Tracey Caldarazzo, who allegedly said that one of the company’s clients, Dr. Claus Brandigi, called her complaining that Meisner accused him of having an affair with a nurse. This comment apparently made its way to a ZymoGenetics human resources representative in January 2010.
In court documents, Meisner said she believed Brandigi’s impression of her as “dishonest and disrespectful” was a misunderstanding, though she admits he did feel this way and had reported as much to her company.
Defendants noted that Meisner had documented evidence of the statements no later than November 2012, failed to show good cause for the delay, and filed the motion 14 months after the deadline for moving to amend pleadings and a week before the close of discovery.
According to court records, Meisner conceded that while the Supreme Court hasn’t addressed “whether the discovery rule should apply to the defamation actions hidden in the confines of an employment investigation,” there was sufficient Fourth Circuit authority to support the application of the rule here.
In upholding the trial court’s decision, the district court said her argument lacks logical and legal support and that the case she cited, Austin v. Torrington Co., addresses neither a statute of limitations defense nor the discovery rule.
Writing for the court, Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie wrote, “In contrast, many cases hold that South Carolina does not extend the discovery rule to claims for slander and libel, instead running the limitations period from the date of utterance.”
The court further noted that her relationship with Brandigi was referenced in a disciplinary letter she received on Jan. 22, 2010.
“While this letter may not have contained all the details necessary to support the proposed amendments to her complaint, it at least put her on notice of the potential claim,” the court wrote. “Yet, Meisner waited more than two years to initiate this action and seek discovery concerning the basis of the concerns referenced in the disciplinary letter.”
In granting the defendants summary judgment on the original complaint, the court found that ZymoGenetics’ “history of interpersonal conflict” grounds for Meisner’s termination was legitimate and non-discriminatory.
“Plaintiff has failed to show that the reason given for her termination was not the true reason,” the court wrote.
The 25-page decision is Meisner v. ZymoGenetics, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-186-14). A digest of the opinion is available online at sclawyersweekly.com.