Plaintiff alleges that he was defamed when a supervisor and his co-workers asserted that or discussed whether plaintiff was a homosexual: (1) supervisor Duncan allegedly made statements to one of plaintiff’s trainees that plaintiff “had sugar running through his veins” and that “he bats for the other team,” (2) co-worker Bradley addressed plaintiff with demeaning slurs and sent plaintiff an offensive picture, and (3) unnamed employees discussed whether plaintiff was a homosexual while plaintiff was present. However, since plaintiff has not alleged that any of these statements were reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of the speakers’ employment or that their comments were in furtherance of the defendant-employer’s business, plaintiff cannot hold defendant vicariously liable for the alleged defamation.
Banks v. Perdue Farms, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-196-18, 6 pp.) (R. Bryan Harwell, J.) 4:17-cv-02893. James Lewis Cromer for plaintiff; Jonathan Roth and Stephanie Lewis for defendant. D.S.C.
The post Tort/Negligence – Defamation – Labor & Employment – Agency 
first appeared on South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.