|
4132 REVIEW DENIED The fact that when plaintiff pitched a budget proposal to company executives he failed to inform them that a sale he had been working on was on hold and suggested it was still alive and could offset other shortfalls justified the gist and sting of the employer's statement that his conduct was misrepresentative and therefore was a sound basis for the trial court's entry of summary adjudication of his defamation claim; however, after denying summary adjudication of his wrongful termination claim, the court should not have instructed the jury that facts that led to summary adjudication of the defamation claim had been established.CitationRAGHAVAN v BOEING (Satellite Project) 133 CA4 1120 [See: CCP 437c; Smith v Maldonado 72 CA4 637, T/AT 7/99; Ringler v Maryland 80 CA4 1165, T/AT 6/00]
|
|
