Background
Robert Burrows, Jr., and Roberta Kreuser were longtime patrons of a restaurant at the Radisson Hotel and Conference Center in Green Bay. Restaurant employees reported that Kreuser made racially charged comments during visits on May 22 and May 29, 2022, after disputes over seating and taking buffet pastries to go.
After reviewing reports from the employees and speaking with them, hotel general manager Steve Ninham sent the plaintiffs a June 9 letter banning them from Radisson hotel facilities and parking lots. The letter said their conduct jeopardized the hotel’s reputation and warned that violations could lead to criminal-trespass charges. The plaintiffs sued Ninham and hotel operator Aimbridge Hospitality for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed summary judgment for Ninham and Aimbridge on defamation. The plaintiffs did not show a genuine factual dispute that the ban letter was communicated to a third party outside the relevant businesses. In any event, the letter was protected by the common-interest privilege because the copied hotel-related entities shared an interest in enforcing the ban and protecting the business’s reputation.
The plaintiffs also failed to produce evidence that Ninham or Aimbridge sent the letter for the purpose of causing emotional distress, an essential element of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Their theory that employees fabricated reports or that defendants sought to humiliate them was speculative; the record supported the stated business purpose of enforcing the ban.
Key Takeaways
- An internal communication among commonly managed or owned business entities may not establish publication to a third party for defamation purposes.
- A common-interest privilege can protect a business’s communications needed to enforce a premises ban and protect its reputation.
- Speculation about improper motives does not create a triable issue on intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that plaintiffs opposing summary judgment must identify evidence supporting every required element, not merely dispute the underlying events. Denying employee reports did not show that Ninham knowingly or recklessly relied on false information when he imposed the ban.
For businesses, the ruling recognizes a shared operational interest in circulating ban information among affiliated departments and partners responsible for carrying it out.