Plaintiff accuses former employer Donnellon McCarthy Enterprises of Defamation

Step 1:

A legal battle has erupted over alleged defamation and breach of contract involving a former employee and his previous employer. Grant Hilty, along with Modern Office Methods, Inc., filed a complaint against Donnellon McCarthy Enterprises, Inc. (DME) in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas on February 1, 2022. The case centers around accusations that DME disparaged Hilty after he left the company, allegedly violating a nondisparagement agreement.

The conflict began when Hilty was terminated from his position at DME, where he sold copier services and office equipment. After his departure, Hilty joined Modern Office Methods (MOM), a competitor of DME. A settlement agreement was reached between Hilty and DME that included a mutual nondisparagement clause. However, issues arose when MOM claimed that DME employees were making defamatory statements about Hilty to potential clients. This led to the lawsuit filed by Hilty and MOM against DME for defamation, breach of contract, and tortious interference with business relationships.

During the trial, evidence was presented that included various statements made by DME employees about Hilty to prospective clients of MOM. For instance, Jim George, President of DME, allegedly called Hilty “a liar” and “a piece of shit” to Tom Quigley at ClaimLinx on May 19, 2021. Additionally, Steve Sexton from DME reportedly made derogatory comments about Hilty to Wes Keesee of YAC Robot Systems on June 15, 2021. These allegations were part of a broader pattern where DME representatives purportedly disparaged Hilty’s character and professional integrity.

The jury found some statements defamatory but ultimately ruled in favor of DME due to the requirement for proving “actual malice,” meaning that the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. This standard was applied because the trial court deemed the statements as covered by qualified privilege due to an employer-employee relationship context.

Hilty’s appeal argued that this application of actual malice was incorrect since it did not align with Ohio law regarding qualified privilege outside direct employment settings. The appellate court agreed with this assessment for certain claims but upheld others as derivative or unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Hilty seeks damages for reputational harm caused by these alleged breaches and defamations while also aiming for a retrial on specific aspects like breach-of-contract claims tied to certain statements deemed improperly excluded from consideration initially.

Representing the plaintiffs are attorneys Jon B. Allison, Austin H. LiPuma, and Paige E. Richardson from Freking Myers & Reul. The defense is represented by Chad E. Willits and Michael J. Caligaris from Reminger Co., LPA. The case is presided over by Judges Kinsley P.J., Moore J., and Bock J., under Case ID C-240418.