Thompson, an experienced advisor to high worth individuals, was hired by the Riverside Trust, which managed the estate of Robert DeNiro. About two years later, Thompson was being terminated from his position under circumstances he believed were amiable, but actually, he was accused of taking kickbacks, and stealing from the estate. He filed suit for defamation, listing 5 separate defamatory statements made by different speakers. The defendants filed motion for summary judgment, and the court ruled on each statement, deciding whether it was defamatory, and so could survive a motion for summary judgment.

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?

2. What are the allegedly defamatory statements that were made about the plaintiff in this case? For which statements was summary judgment granted to the defendants? Why? For which statements was summary judgment denied? Why?

3. What is qualified privilege? Is there an argument to be made that all of the alleged defamatory statements are shielded by qualified privilege, and not just the statements made to Gerow? Why or why not?

4. How does a former employee know whether he or she is being defamed in references from a former employer?

5. Given the circumstances of his termination, how should representatives of the Riverside Trust have responded to requests for references on the plaintiff?