ADVERTISEMENTS

Brett v. Media General Operations, Inc.

2008-CA-000620 01/29/2010 2010 WL 323136



Opinion by Senior Judge Harris; Judges Lambert and VanMeter concurred. The court affirmed a summary judgment entered by the circuit court in favor of appellant?s former employer, a television station, and its general manager and an order awarding costs to the employer. The Court first held that summary judgment was not based upon improper evidence when the majority of the proof consisted of witness depositions that were properly certified and notarized. Further, appellant?s deposition was complete, as he did not request a re-direct examination, nor did he file an affidavit to explain, correct, or contradict the testimony he gave under examination by opposing counsel, which was authorized by CR 56.03. The Court also held that although the employer and general manager may have violated office policies by destroying documents, appellant failed to demonstrate that any law or court orders were violated or that they were lost or destroyed in anticipation of litigation. The Court next held that appellant failed to present evidence demonstrating any genuine issue of material fact on his breach of contract claim. His contract contained a morals clause and his termination letter made it clear that he was terminated for cause after four women complained that he had sexually harassed them on numerous occasions. Absent a specific contractual provision, the employer was under no obligation to provide additional investigative measures or an opportunity to be heard. The Court next held that appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issue of material fact on the basic element of material misrepresentation to support his claim that he was fraudulently induced into entering the employment contract. The Court next held that appellant failed to show how his allegations of misrepresentations and improper termination constituted contractual interference. The Court next held that appellant failed to specifically describe any alleged defamatory statements or state where they were published to show how the employer was responsible for dissemination of information to support a claim for defamation. The Court next held that appellant failed to produce evidence to show that his termination was outrageous or intolerable in the manner required under Kentucky law to support his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court finally held that the ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court in the employer?s favor, in an original action wherein appellant argued that the trial court lost jurisdiction under CR 52.02 to award costs after appellant filed his Notice of Appeal, was dispositive of the appeal from the order awarding costs.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.