Defamation case of Cynthia Hyland v. Raytheon Technical Services Company, et al.

by pj8575 (student)

University Degree Law

HYLAND V. RAYTHEON TECHICAL SERVICES COMPANY

John E. Zoul and Jessica Williams

Strayer University

LEG 100

Judge/Professor Potter

August 21, 2012

Defamation case of Cynthia Hyland v. Raytheon Technical Services Company, et al.

Opening Statement

Good evening, Your Honor and ladies and gentlemen of the jury. My name is John Zoul and it is my privilege along with my associate, Jessica Williams, to represent Cynthia Hyland in a defamation lawsuit versus Raytheon Technical Services Company (RTSC), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Raytheon, Inc. and a Fortune 100 company which has been listed on the New York Stock Exchange for over half a century.

Cynthia Hyland was a dedicated, loyal employee and executive of Raytheon for approximately twenty-one years. She was promoted numerous times. She always earned high marks on her annual performance reviews until after a consulting assessment of the President of RTSC, Bryan Even, turned-up some honest, candid and meant to be helpful and confidential remarks, concerning Mr. Even, by Ms. Hyland. This information was transmitted to Mr. Even, through the VP of HR of RTSC, who had been told by the consultants.

Subsequently, Mr. Even on February 28, 2003, gave Ms. Hyland a scathingly negative review, containing five, what we believe are defamatory statements concerning Ms. Hyland and her performance in 2002. We will prove that Mr. Even, as an agent and President of RTSC, defamed Cynthia Hyland. We will prove: he had the intent to harm Ms. Hyland, that it was a voluntary and spiteful act by him, that there clearly was causation and that she was terminated as a result, suffering both financial and emotional harm or injury. Proving this, you must find in favor of the plaintiff, Cynthia Hyland. Thank you.

The Issues: Allegedly defamatory, actionable statements made by the defendant

Cynthia Hyland and her team met their cash goals, but, were significantly off plan on all other financial targets, including Bookings by 25%, Sales by 11.5%, and profit by 24%.
Ms. Hyland led RTSC in the protest of the FAA’s evaluation selection process for the TSSC contract and through a difficult procurement for the TSA, both of which demanded her constant attention. These visible losses created significant gaps in our strategic plans and in her business unit financial performance.
Cynthia is frequently ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Issues: Allegedly defamatory, actionable statements made by the defendant

Cynthia Hyland and her team met their cash goals, but, were significantly off plan on all other financial targets, including Bookings by 25%, Sales by 11.5%, and profit by 24%.
Ms. Hyland led RTSC in the protest of the FAA’s evaluation selection process for the TSSC contract and through a difficult procurement for the TSA, both of which demanded her constant attention. These visible losses created significant gaps in our strategic plans and in her business unit financial performance.
Cynthia is frequently verbose and vocal in her opinions, to a degree that others stop participating in open dialogue.
She has received specific feedback from her customers, the Beacon group study, her employees, and her leader (President Bryan Even) on her need to listen and learn from others. Yet, she has appeared to be unwilling to accept and work with this feedback.
Ms. Hyland has also been inappropriately and openly critical of her leader, her peers, and other leaders in the company. This behavior is not only destructive to the team; it negatively impacts her image in the eyes of others, including customers.

The Law

The law concerning defamation, a tort, which is designed to protect individuals against damage to their reputation caused by false statements of fact, its scope is carefully constrained by broad protections to speech by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by Article 1, Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution. A bedrock principle of that protection is that “there is no such thing as a false idea.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339 (1974).

False statements of fact made maliciously in a performance review, remain subject to claims of defamation: Larimore v. Blaylock.

“Factual statements made to support or justify an opinion can form the basis of an action for defamation”: Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Lipscomb.

Speech constitutes a non-actionable statement of opinion if it “does not contain a provably false factual connotation” or “cannot be interpreted as stating actual facts about a person”: Fuste, 265 Va. At 132, 575 S.E. 2d at 861. Speech is also non-actionable if its perceived accuracy is largely dependent on one’s viewpoint. Id.: Chaves v. Johnson, 230 Va. 112, 119, 335 S.E. 2d 97, 101 (1985).

Defamation per se: a statement either must impute (attribute) to a person’s unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment or must prejudice that person in his or her profession or trade.

Conclusion

“Defamation is an intentional communication to a third party of an untrue statement, asserted as fact that injures the plaintiff’s reputation by exposing him or her to hatred, ridicule or contempt (Bagley and Savage, 2010, p. 289).” This is precisely what occurred when the President of RTSC on February 2003, when Bryan Even, the defendant, made malicious statements, which he knew to be false or were made with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. By clear and convincing evidence the statements at issue were made knowing they were false or so recklessly as to amount to a willful disregard for the truth. The defendant’s misstatements have caused Cynthia Hyland’s career with RTSC to be destroyed and with the financial consequences of losing her high-paying executive salary and commensurate pension. Also, she has suffered the emotional trauma of being fired by a company she toiled with sixty and seventy hours a week for over twenty years.

Let’s briefly look at a timeline of Cynthia Hyland’s career with Raytheon:

1982, Hired by Raytheon
1992, Ten year anniversary of employment
2000, She has been promoted several times and is currently the Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Installation and Integration Division (I &IS) of RTSC
2000-2001, leads her division in competition for the Technical Support Services contract (TSSC).
December 2001, loses bid for TSSC
February 2002, Hyland’s unit submits bid for a contract with the Federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Loses bid in May 2002
Summer 2002, RTSC hires a consulting firm to assess RTSC’s contract proposals
June 2002, President Even reorganizes RTSC and promotes Hyland to manage and lead the Systems and Product Support Services division (SPSS), a much larger division including I & IS plus two other divisions
August 2002, report released to Raytheon management. Report does not specifically reference Hyland
Late 2002, RTSC hires another consulting firm to perform an executive assessment of President B. Even
December 6, 2002, Ms. Hyland is induced into a candid analysis of Mr. Evens’ leadership abilities (she is guaranteed is will be completely confidential), she answers candidly and honestly about both his many strengths and also about a few of his weaknesses.
February 13, 2003, the consultants meet with Even to give them their analysis of his strengths and weaknesses. They let him know at least one individual has stated some negatives. He has areas in which he needs improvement
Shortly thereafter, 2003, the VP of HR for RTSC informs Mr. Even that it was Hyland who made some negative, confidential comments about him.
February 28, 2003, Even has Hyland in his office and gives her a scathing performance review. Her first negative review ever at Raytheon
May 29, 2003, Mr. Even attends a human resources review meeting. He discusses Hyland’s performance review with the CEO of Raytheon
July 3, 2003, the CEO sends a memo to Even concerning Hyland, “We are at the decision point. If she recognizes her issues and wants to work to improve, let’s do everything we can to support her. If she continues in denial, we’ll need to make a change.” Even considered this memo to be a green light to fire Hyland.
July 23, 2003, Even and the VP of HR (Miller) meet with Hyland. Even tells Hyland she had refused to accept the feedback he gave her and that this had created a problem with her peers. He then terminated her employment.

These are the facts. We believe it is very clear that Mr. Even felt threatened and insulted when the consultants gave him his performance review, which stated he had some leadership issues. When he subsequently found out from the VP of HR, Ms. Miller, that it was Hyland who had spoken in negative terms about his leadership abilities, he totally changed course concerning his treatment of Ms. Hyland. He invented things concerning Hyland’s own abilities and made insulting remarks concerning her communication skills, which had not been criticized previously. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I believe it is clear that Mr. Even felt he needed to get even with Ms. Hyland and we see exactly what he has wrought upon Ms. Hyland as well as upon RTSC. I ask that you find in favor of finding for the plaintiff, Ms. Cynthia Hyland. Thank you.

References

Bagley, C. E, & Savage, D. (2010). Managers and the legal environment. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.

Retrieved from: http://findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1301291.html