Thompson v. Johnson , 299 Neb. 819 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    06/01/2018 01:07 AM CDT
    - 819 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    K im M. Thompson, appellant, v.
    A aron M. Johnson and Shawna
    L. Johnson, appellees.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed May 4, 2018.     No. S-17-445.
    1.	 Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will
    affirm a lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and
    admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
    facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts
    and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
    2.	 ____: ____. In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views
    the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the
    judgment was granted and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable
    inferences deducible from the evidence.
    3.	 Torts: Intent: Proof. To succeed on a claim for tortious interference
    with a business relationship or expectancy, a plaintiff must prove (1) the
    existence of a valid business relationship or expectancy, (2) knowledge
    by the interferer of the relationship or expectancy, (3) an unjustified
    intentional act of interference on the part of the interferer, (4) proof that
    the interference caused the harm sustained, and (5) damage to the party
    whose relationship or expectancy was disrupted.
    4.	 Torts: Employer and Employee. Factors to consider in determining
    whether interference with a business relationship is “improper” include:
    (1) the nature of the actor’s conduct, (2) the actor’s motive, (3) the
    interests of the other with which the actor’s conduct interferes, (4) the
    interests sought to be advanced by the actor, (5) the social interests in
    protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the contractual interests
    of the other, (6) the proximity or remoteness of the actor’s conduct to
    the interference, and (7) the relations between the parties.
    5.	 Torts: Liability. A person does not incur liability for interfering with
    a business relationship by giving truthful information to another. Such
    interference is not improper, even if the facts are marshaled in such a
    - 820 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    way that they speak for themselves and the person to whom the infor-
    mation is given immediately recognizes them as a reason for breaking a
    contract or refusing to deal with another.
    6.	 Summary Judgment: Proof. Once the moving party makes a prima
    facie case, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce
    admissible contradictory evidence showing the existence of a material
    issue of fact that prevents judgment as a matter of law.
    7.	 Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an
    analysis which is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it.
    Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Horatio
    J. Wheelock, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court
    for Douglas County, Susan M. Bazis, Judge. Judgment of
    District Court affirmed.
    Joy Shiffermiller and Abby Osborn, of Shiffermiller Law
    Office, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
    Damien J. Wright, of Welch Law Firm, P.C., for appellees.
    Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, and Stacy, JJ., and
    Luther and O’Gorman, District Judges.
    Luther, District Judge.
    INTRODUCTION
    This appeal arises from a lawsuit filed by Kim M. Thompson
    (Kim) in which she alleged that Aaron M. Johnson and Shawna
    L. Johnson tortiously interfered with her business relationship
    with her employer, Millard Public Schools (MPS). The county
    court for Douglas County granted Aaron and Shawna’s motion
    for summary judgment, and the district court for Douglas
    County affirmed. Kim now appeals to this court. Kim asserts,
    in pertinent part, that the evidence shows a genuine issue of
    material fact concerning whether interference by Aaron and
    Shawna was justified. We conclude that the undisputed facts
    show that Aaron’s and Shawna’s actions were justified, because
    they provided truthful information to MPS. Therefore, we
    affirm the district court’s order.
    - 821 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    BACKGROUND
    Parties
    The undisputed evidence shows that Kim and Aaron met
    through their work with MPS. In her position as a project man-
    ager employed by MPS, Kim organized construction projects
    within the district. Aaron worked on construction projects for
    MPS as an independent contractor. At all times relevant to this
    appeal, Aaron was married to Shawna and they had children
    attending MPS. In October 2011, Kim and Aaron began an
    extramarital affair.
    October 2012 Suspension
    In October 2012, Shawna learned of the affair between Kim
    and Aaron. Aaron ended the affair and informed MPS that he
    would no longer work with Kim. Following an investigation,
    MPS discovered that Kim had used MPS’ computers “to com-
    municate inappropriate messages and pictures” with Aaron, in
    violation of MPS policy. As a result, MPS suspended Kim for
    8 days without pay.
    Continued Contact and
    M arch 2014 Directives
    Kim and Aaron continued to have contact with each other.
    On February 26, 2014, in response to an email from Kim in
    which she stated that Aaron did not care about her, Aaron
    wrote, “If I didn’t care about you at all, why would I have ever
    agreed to talk to you? . . . If I didn’t care and I wanted to go
    into your boss and get you fired, and ruin your life, I could
    have done it long ago.”
    Not long afterward, new concerns about Kim’s job per­
    formance prompted a meeting between her and MPS officials.
    At the meeting on March 3, 2014, MPS officials addressed
    the issue of an angry and loud telephone call that Kim had
    conducted with her ex-husband in the workplace and allega-
    tions that Kim had gone through documents on her supervi-
    sor’s desk.
    - 822 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    During the meeting process, Kim volunteered that she
    was having issues with Aaron and Shawna. Kim stated to
    MPS officials that in November 2013, Aaron had shown up
    at her workplace demanding to speak to her and threaten-
    ing to cause a scene. Kim told MPS officials that to process
    her feelings after “good talks” with Aaron in the summer of
    2013, she had painted a painting of her and Aaron and posted
    it on Facebook, initially identifying the two by name. She
    stated that when Aaron asked her to remove the painting,
    she removed the identifying names, but she did not remove
    the painting. Kim reported that this caused Aaron to threaten
    to call her supervisor and jeopardize her employment. Kim
    also told MPS officials that Shawna had been stalking Kim’s
    Facebook page.
    On March 7, 2014, MPS wrote a letter to Kim documenting
    the topics discussed and the expectations communicated at the
    March 3 meeting. In part, the letter stated:
    ISSUE #5: The issue of your relationship with the
    person who almost cost you your job (Aaron) came up
    repeatedly . . . . This is related to the affair you had with
    Aaron (a former contractor for the District) in 2012 that
    was dealt with in your reprimand and suspension letter
    from late 2012.
    ....
    EXPECTATION: . . .
    ....
    We discussed how your affair with Aaron almost cost
    [you] your job before. Now, you appear to be escalating
    a confrontation with Aaron and his wife by posting on a
    public media page. . . . As we discussed, if you escalate
    this conflict and that escalation impacts [the] workplace,
    it is likely to lead to future discipline, up to and includ-
    ing termination.
    ....
    . . . Specifically, it is not our intention to take any
    action if Aaron or his wife reacts irrationally to a post that
    - 823 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    is not about them. However, if your communications can
    be reasonably interpreted as an escalation of that conflict
    and that conflict disrupts the workplace, we may not be
    able to support you.
    Kim signed the document, acknowledging that she had
    received it.
    Further Contact Between Parties,
    M arch to June 2014
    On or about March 25, 2014, Shawna received a link from
    “Lisa Johnson,” who claimed to be a friend of Kim’s. The link
    invited Shawna to view a cloud account that contained over
    200 documents showing communications between Kim and
    Aaron, to demonstrate to Shawna “what has been happening
    behind your back for the last year.” “Lisa Johnson” claimed
    that she was able to access the information because Kim’s
    password was easy to deduce. Shawna and “Lisa Johnson,”
    who Shawna believed to be Kim, corresponded about the affair
    on Facebook, and Shawna used the format to tell Kim not to
    contact Aaron or Shawna again. On March 30, Aaron posted
    on the “Lisa Johnson” Facebook page, telling Kim to cease
    contact with him and his family.
    On April 2, 2014, an attorney representing Aaron and
    Shawna sent a letter to Kim, telling her not to contact them.
    On April 9, an attorney for Kim sent a letter to Aaron and
    Shawna’s attorney. The letter requested that Aaron not contact
    Kim at any location, including her workplace.
    On April 14 and 23, 2014, Kim sent text messages to Aaron
    sarcastically praising Aaron’s relationship with Shawna and
    expressing sadness over losing Aaron. On April 24, Shawna
    sent a long email message to Kim, telling her to stop contact-
    ing Aaron.
    On April 28, 2014, Kim emailed Shawna an invitation to
    “Find me on Facebook.” The email prompted Shawna to search
    Facebook, which led her to discover a Facebook page for
    “Kimberly Johnson.” The “Kimberly Johnson” page consisted
    - 824 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    of long, indepth journal-style posts related to Kim’s affair with
    Aaron. This content was viewable to the public. Kim made
    similar posts on her “Kim Thompson” Facebook page. Kim
    continued to post on the Facebook pages with comments and
    questions specifically directed at Shawna.
    On May 12, 2014, Shawna emailed Kim to arrange a meet-
    ing between Aaron, Shawna, and Kim to resolve the issues
    that had occurred. The meeting did not take place, but over
    the course of 5 days, Shawna and Kim exchanged a series of
    lengthy email messages, the tone of which ranged from vitri-
    olic to sympathetic on both sides. Ultimately, Shawna asked for
    no further contact from Kim and shut down the email account
    that she had used to communicate with Kim.
    Kim continued to post on her “Kimberly Thompson”
    Facebook page with comments directed at Aaron and Shawna.
    On May 31, 2014, Kim referenced Aaron and Shawna’s chil-
    dren: “I burst out crying tonight just thinking about your boys
    [I] grew to love from just your stories. I am SO sad. I know it
    sounds crazy, but [I] feel like [I] lost them too.”
    On June 2, 2014, Kim reported to MPS that Shawna had
    posted on her Instagram account that Shawna had sched-
    uled principal/parent meetings to discuss security concerns
    for her children due to an employee. Kim informed MPS that
    Aaron and Shawna had been “blocked” from her Facebook
    account.
    On June 5, 2014, in a post directed at Shawna, Kim stated,
    “I do love your boys like my own, and I would never hurt
    them intentionally.” Also on June 5, “Macy James” messaged
    the “Kimberly Thompson” Facebook account and stated, “I
    WILL follow through with the meetings scheduled this fall b/c
    you are unstable and should not have access to my kids in any
    way.” Other elements of the message suggested that “Macy
    James” was likely Shawna.
    On June 24, 2014, Kim sent a brief message to Aaron’s work
    email account, calling him a “horrible person” and an “ugly
    man” with “no heart or a conscience.” Aaron and Shawna
    - 825 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    believed that this was the first time Kim had emailed that
    particular account. Shawna was concerned that Kim may have
    obtained the email address from MPS files for Aaron and
    Shawna’s children, where the email address was listed as con-
    tact information. Further, Shawna was concerned, because, due
    to Kim’s employment, Kim had access to MPS buildings; and
    Shawna thought it possible that Kim would attempt to involve
    her children in the situation or make contact with them to pro-
    voke a reaction from Aaron and Shawna.
    July 2014 Termination
    On July 2, 2014, Shawna emailed MPS to address the con-
    cerns that she and Aaron had for the safety and privacy of their
    children, whom Kim had not met. Shawna’s email summarized
    the contact she and Aaron had with Kim beginning in 2012.
    Shawna further stated:
    Last week [Kim] emailed my husband’s business email
    account . . . . The only way he or I can think she may
    have gotten this email account is through our children’s
    confidential information held by the district . . . .
    . . . [W]e have sound reason to be concerned for
    the well[-]being of our children as [Kim] has access
    to all buildings in the district due to the nature of her
    job as I understand it. We are also very concerned that
    our privacy will inevitably be compromised so long as
    [Kim] works for MPS and our kids attend MPS. We
    are considering removing them from the district for this
    reason . . . .
    Shawna requested a meeting on the matter, but she did not
    request any specific action relating to Kim. In an affidavit,
    Shawna specifically disclaimed sending the email with the
    intent of ending Kim’s employment.
    Shawna’s email included a link to the “Kim Thompson”
    Facebook page and offered to provide additional documen-
    tation upon request. The same day, the director of human
    resources for MPS called Shawna and asked for additional
    - 826 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    documentation. Shawna provided printouts of several Facebook
    postings, messages from Kim, and Shawna’s own handwritten
    notes documenting her interactions with Kim.
    During the resulting meeting with MPS on July 7, 2014,
    Kim admitted inviting Shawna to view her Facebook page
    and, except for some minor factual discrepancies, she admitted
    to posting the majority of the material provided by Shawna.
    MPS placed Kim on nondisciplinary, paid administrative leave
    while MPS investigated the matter. MPS officials told Kim
    not to have further contact with Aaron and Shawna until MPS
    decided how to proceed.
    On July 8, 2014, the day after the meeting, Shawna received
    a notification from a social media website that Kim had
    “repinned [one] of [Shawna’s] pins.” MPS officials subse-
    quently learned of this notification, which they considered con-
    trary to the no-contact directive they had given to Kim.
    MPS officials decided to terminate Kim’s employment. At
    a deposition, MPS’ director of employee relations explained
    that MPS officials based the decision on “insubordination,
    unprofessional conduct, just the continuation of the escalation
    of the conflict where she continued to post things that made
    it . . . uncomfortable with [Aaron and Shawna’s] kids being
    in school as parents of the district, residents of the district,
    just inappropriate conduct.” He also testified regarding why
    Thompson’s employment was terminated in 2014 and not in
    2012, when the affair first came to light:
    Q. Why wasn’t [Kim] fired in 2012 when the affair was
    first discovered?
    A. . . . I recall the conversation being that she’s had
    a fairly long tenure as a decent employee. Is there any-
    thing we can do to save her where she might change her
    behaviors? And at that point, it was thought there was a
    reasonable probability of success was the consensus if we
    allowed [Kim] to continue [her] job.
    Q. And in 2014, there was not the same feeling?
    A. Correct.
    - 827 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    MPS officials offered Kim the option to resign in lieu of
    termination of her employment. Kim opted to resign.
    Litigation
    On September 14, 2015, Kim filed a lawsuit against Aaron
    and Shawna in the county court. She alleged, inter alia, a cause
    of action based on the theory of tortious interference with
    a business relationship. In part, she averred that Aaron and
    Shawna had “committed numerous unjustified intentional acts
    of interference in an attempt to cause [Kim] to lose her job at
    [MPS]” and that such interference was done with the intent or
    reasonably foreseeable effect of causing harm to Kim.
    Aaron and Shawna filed a motion for summary judgment.
    Following a hearing on the motion, consisting of the evidence
    above, the county court granted summary judgment in favor of
    Aaron and Shawna and dismissed Kim’s complaint, with preju-
    dice. In part, the county court found that Aaron and Shawna
    were justified in contacting MPS due to concerns for their
    children and that Shawna’s email did not cause termination
    of Kim’s employment. Instead, the county court determined
    that Kim’s own conduct and continued contact with Aaron and
    Shawna caused the termination.
    Kim appealed the county court’s order to the district court.
    After a hearing, the district court affirmed.
    Kim now appeals to this court.
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    Kim assigns, condensed and restated, that the county court
    erred in failing to find a genuine issue of material fact that
    precluded summary judgment against her claim of tortious
    interference with a business relationship.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1,2] An appellate court will affirm a lower court’s grant
    of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence
    show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or
    - 828 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those
    facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
    matter of law.1 In reviewing a summary judgment, an appel-
    late court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the
    party against whom the judgment was granted and gives that
    party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from
    the evidence.2
    ANALYSIS
    Kim appeals the order of the district court that affirmed
    the county court’s order granting summary judgment in favor
    of Aaron and Shawna. For the benefit of judges and practi­
    tioners, we take this opportunity to note that, effective August
    24, 2017, the Legislature modified Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1332
    (Supp. 2017) to impose citation and argument requirements
    regarding assertions of disputed facts on summary judg-
    ment. But here, neither party assigns error based upon the
    new procedures.
    [3] This appeal turns on a single theory of recovery: tortious
    interference with a business relationship. To succeed on a
    claim for tortious interference with a business relationship or
    expectancy, a plaintiff must prove (1) the existence of a valid
    business relationship or expectancy, (2) knowledge by the
    interferer of the relationship or expectancy, (3) an unjustified
    intentional act of interference on the part of the interferer, (4)
    proof that the interference caused the harm sustained, and (5)
    damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy was
    disrupted.3 On appeal, Kim disputes the county court’s find-
    ings that no genuine issue of material fact existed concerning
    whether Aaron’s and Shawna’s interference was unjustified
    and whether such interference caused Kim to lose her job
    with MPS.
    1
    Benard v. McDowall, LLC, 
    298 Neb. 398
    , 
    904 N.W.2d 679
    (2017).
    2
    Id.
    3
    Recio v. Evers, 
    278 Neb. 405
    , 
    771 N.W.2d 121
    (2009).
    - 829 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    Whether Interference by A aron
    and Shawna Was Unjustified
    [4] To assist in determining whether interference is “unjus-
    tified” under the third prong of the foregoing test, Nebraska
    has adopted the seven-factor balancing test of the Restatement
    (Second) of Torts.4 Under the Restatement’s general test, fac-
    tors to consider in determining whether interference with a
    business relationship is “improper” include: (1) the nature of
    the actor’s conduct, (2) the actor’s motive, (3) the interests
    of the other with which the actor’s conduct interferes, (4) the
    interests sought to be advanced by the actor, (5) the social
    interests in protecting the freedom of action of the actor and
    the contractual interests of the other, (6) the proximity or
    remoteness of the actor’s conduct to the interference, and (7)
    the relations between the parties.5
    [5] Ordinarily, we would use these factors to determine
    whether interference is “improper” and, thus, “unjustified”
    under our law.6 However, if the information provided is truth-
    ful, the interference is not unjustified.7 We have expressly
    stated, “[A] person does not incur liability for interfering
    with a business relationship by giving truthful information to
    another.”8 Such interference is not improper, even if the facts
    are marshaled in such a way that they speak for themselves
    and the person to whom the information is given immedi-
    ately recognizes them as a reason for breaking a contract
    or refusing to deal with another.9 When truthful information
    provides the basis for a termination of a business relationship,
    the resulting liability, if any, should rest on the party who
    4
    See, Sulu v. Magana, 
    293 Neb. 148
    , 
    879 N.W.2d 674
    (2016), citing Recio
    v. Evers, supra note 3; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 767 (1979).
    5
    Id.
    6
    See Sulu v. Magana, supra note 4.
    7
    Sulu v. Magana, supra note 4; Recio v. Evers, supra note 3.
    8
    Recio v. Evers, supra note 
    3, 278 Neb. at 421
    , 771 N.W.2d at 133.
    9
    
    Id. - 830
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    made an informed choice to terminate the relationship—not
    the party who provided the facts upon which that decision
    was based.10
    Viewed in the light most favorable to Kim, the evidence
    demonstrates that Aaron and Shawna conveyed truthful infor-
    mation to MPS and that, therefore, such communication was
    not unjustified. First, in 2012, Aaron informed MPS of his
    affair with Kim. The entire record and Kim’s suit are based on
    the truthfulness of that disclosure. Second, Shawna’s July 2,
    2014, email to MPS officials raised Aaron’s and Shawna’s con-
    cerns for the safety and privacy of their children. Shawna pro-
    vided specific examples of Kim’s questionable behavior that
    were either supported or undisputed by the record. Her email
    also included a link to Kim’s “Kim Thompson” Facebook
    page, and Shawna later provided additional documentary evi-
    dence of Kim’s online activity to MPS. When MPS confronted
    Kim with the documentation provided by Shawna, Kim admit-
    ted to posting the material, except for a few minor factual
    disputes. But the discrepancies noted by Kim did not establish
    any genuine issue of material fact about the truthfulness of
    Shawna’s disclosures to MPS.
    Thus, because Aaron and Shawna deduced evidence that
    their communications with MPS were truthful and therefore not
    “unjustified,” they disproved an essential element of tortious
    interference with a business relationship and made a prima
    facie showing that they were entitled to summary judgment.
    [6] Once the moving party makes a prima facie case, the
    burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce
    admissible contradictory evidence showing the existence of
    a material issue of fact that prevents judgment as a matter of
    law.11 Kim asserts that she presented evidence that Aaron’s and
    Shawna’s communications with MPS were not based in truth,
    thereby rebutting their position that those communications
    10
    
    Id. 11 Sulu
    v. Magana, supra note 4.
    - 831 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    were justified. She primarily attempts to raise factual disputes
    about Aaron’s and Shawna’s beliefs relating to the source of
    Aaron’s work email address and about their concerns regarding
    the children that Shawna said prompted her July 2014 email to
    MPS. We find no merit to Kim’s arguments.
    Kim contends that Shawna’s email falsely claimed that
    prior to the message Kim sent to Aaron’s work email address
    in June 2014, Kim had not used that particular address. Kim
    cites to the record and claims that she used Aaron’s work email
    address in February 2014. However, the February 2014 email
    address cited by Kim is different from the one she used in
    June 2014; and the record does not reveal any other instance
    of Kim’s sending messages to that address or receiving mes-
    sages from it. Additionally, we note that Shawna’s email did
    not categorically assert that Kim had accessed the children’s
    records to obtain Aaron’s work email address, but, rather,
    stated that the children’s records were the only source for the
    information that Aaron and Shawna could surmise. The record
    simply does not raise any dispute as to the truthfulness of
    Aaron’s and Shawna’s professed beliefs about the source of
    the email address.
    Kim further attempts to discredit Shawna’s concern for
    her children’s safety because Kim had never met the chil-
    dren and because Shawna was aware, through the copious
    documents disclosed to her, that Kim had expressed to Aaron
    that she cared about the children. Similarly, Kim argues that
    the evidence does not support concern for the children on
    Aaron’s part, because he and Kim had previously corresponded
    about the children and Kim’s potential relationship with them.
    However, the record does not contradict the sincerity of the
    concerns that Shawna attributed to herself and to Aaron. In fact,
    the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Aaron and Shawna
    had ample reason to be concerned. After the affair ended,
    Kim made varied, time-consuming, and at times underhanded
    efforts to engage Aaron and Shawna in intense discussions
    about the affair and about Aaron and Shawna as individuals.
    - 832 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    These communications included references to Aaron and
    Shawna’s children, to whom Kim had potential access through
    her employment. Certainly, Aaron’s and Shawna’s communi-
    cations with Kim contributed to escalating tensions with her.
    But their participation does not negate the truthfulness of their
    reports to MPS concerning their interactions with Kim.
    Kim also tries to refute the veracity of Aaron’s and Shawna’s
    concerns by citing their previous “threats” and actions to jeop-
    ardize Kim’s employment. She specifically refers to Shawna’s
    Instagram post, messages authored by “Macy James,” the
    February 2014 email to Kim from Aaron, and Aaron’s attempts
    to contact her at MPS. According to Kim, this evidence
    reflects the intent to have Kim’s employment terminated. We
    note that Shawna expressly denied that she intended to end
    Kim’s employment by emailing MPS. Furthermore, we have
    previously observed that while a malicious motive is a factor
    which may be considered in determining whether interference
    is unjustified, it is generally insufficient standing alone to
    establish that fact; and in making that observation, we reiter-
    ated that a party will not incur liability for the communication
    of truthful information.12 While the evidence cited by Kim
    may imply an underlying desire that Kim’s employment with
    MPS end and while the information Shawna provided was
    marshaled in a way that was damning to Kim, these factors do
    not diminish the truthfulness of Aaron’s and Shawna’s com-
    munications with MPS.
    The factual disputes that Kim attempts to generate simply
    are not issues of material fact. Having considered Kim’s argu-
    ments while giving her the benefit of all reasonable inferences
    deducible from the evidence, we discern no issue of material
    fact concerning the truthfulness of the information Aaron and
    Shawna provided to MPS.
    In sum, Kim failed to meet her burden to produce admis-
    sible contradictory evidence creating a material issue of fact
    12
    See Recio v. Evers, supra note 3.
    - 833 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    THOMPSON v. JOHNSON
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 819
    to rebut Aaron and Shawna’s prima facie case; and the district
    court did not err in affirming the county court’s order granting
    summary judgment in favor of Aaron and Shawna.
    Whether Interference by A aron and
    Shawna Caused H arm to K im
    [7] Because we have concluded that Aaron and Shawna are
    not liable to Kim based on their truthful communications with
    MPS, thus defeating Kim’s claim, we need not consider Kim’s
    contentions that those communications caused her harm.13 An
    appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis which
    is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it.14
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons stated above, we conclude that because
    Aaron and Shawna provided truthful information to MPS about
    Kim, they could not incur liability for interfering with Kim’s
    business relationship with MPS. Therefore, the county court
    did not err in granting Aaron and Shawna’s motion for sum-
    mary judgment on Kim’s claim of tortious interference with a
    business relationship, and the district court did not err when it
    affirmed the county court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm the
    district court’s order.
    A ffirmed.
    Funke, J., participating on briefs.
    Wright, J., not participating.
    13
    See 
    id. 14 Id.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S-17-445

Citation Numbers: 299 Neb. 819

Filed Date: 5/4/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/19/2019