"He Admitted Receiving the Password" for the Laptop, but "It Took Him Over an Hour to Log In"

Defamation litigation ensues.

From Palardy v. AT&T Services Inc., decided Friday by Texas Court of Appeals (Dallas) Justice Cory Carlyle, joined by Justices Robbie Partida-Kipness and Dennise Garcia:

Appellant Francis Palardy sued appellees AT&T Services Inc. and International Business Machines Corporation for defamation. Via a staffing firm, Experis, Palardy worked as an IBM contractor on an AT&T project. The project required him to perform technical work on a computer, but when AT&T became aware Palardy appeared to lack even basic computer skills, such as logging on to a laptop, it informed IBM and Experis that Palardy was to be terminated….

The court upheld the rejection of Palardy's defamation claim, largely under the "common-interest" privilege:

"The common law provides a qualified privilege against defamation liability when 'communication is made in good faith and the author, the recipient or a third person, or one of their family members, has an interest that is sufficiently affected by the communication.'" This can be "between people having a common business interest in employment-related matters or in reference to matters that the speaker has a duty to communicate to the other." To prevail on summary judgment, the defendant must conclusively establish a lack of actual malice in making the allegedly defamatory statement. Actual malice means a statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for its truth.

First, some background: Palardy relocated to North Texas to start this job on November 26, 2018, having previously coordinated with IBM to have a laptop sent to his prior residence on the West Coast. Without informing Experis, IBM, or AT&T, Palardy left for Texas without having received the laptop. Palardy did not show up for work on the 26th, and appeared the next day but without the laptop. He waited until midday this first day to inform IBM that he did not have a computer, and was seen looking at his phone and reading books on his tablet in a corner the rest of the day.

The next day, AT&T provided a temporary laptop for Palardy, and he admitted receiving the password for it but that it took him over an hour to log in with that password. Others tried to help and referred Palardy to an 800 number to help, but Palardy claimed he didn't like calling 800 numbers and that if he did, "it would just be confusing." Someone else eventually logged on for Palardy, but he did no substantive work that second day. The third day, McEnroe, whose computer Palardy was using, instructed Palardy to change the password but Palardy struggled to do so. Palardy admitted he missed a morning meeting trying to perform this basic function. Palardy did no substantive work this third and final day, despite having all he needed to do so.

First, Palardy alleges AT&T project manager Martin McEnroe "sent emails to IBM management" seeking Palardy's dismissal and stating "I don't think he has any idea of whether a computer is working or not. He seems not to understand the most basic things about computers." McEnroe also said: "He has two computers. They are both working" and "I don't need people who will sit in a corner and not do anything." McEnroe's statement concerned an employee's performance and he made it to someone who had an interest therein. Therefore, it is subject to a qualified privilege.

Appellants establish lack of malice by conclusively proving that McEnroe and those who reported their interactions with and observations of Palardy had reasonable grounds to believe that their statements were true. They have shown more than some self-serving protestation of sincerity. Even assuming the statements were false, appellants have proved McEnroe exhibited no actual malice by way of reckless disregard—either by having "entertained serious doubts as to the truth" of the statement or by having had a "high degree of awareness of [the statement's] probable falsity." …

The court also rejected Palardy's claim based on McEnroe's statements in a police report:

McEnroe filed a police report in response to both an email Palardy sent him approximately a week after being fired and a text Palardy sent to another employee. Palardy's email covered a range of topics, from alleging a conspiracy against him during the three days he worked on this job to discussions of other large companies and references to other discrimination and retaliation complaints he had filed in the past.

In a move that understandably troubled McEnroe, Palardy ended his email by saying "I also predicted MGM would be hit by a massive terrorist attack, which the FBI didn't like. Last year someone shot five hundred people at an MGM concert. I even predicted it would be at a concert. Maybe that was coincidence. I added that so you can't ignore this email. All of this info has already been given to Experis." Palardy's text to the other employee said, "Tell Marty I'm gunning for his job. If he's called away to hr you'll know why. I could be back soon."

Palardy alleges defamation when "McEnroe claimed he felt threatened" and told police he "did not know how to log onto the Windows computer, [sic] when he was hired as a computer programmer." Appellants have conclusively shown McEnroe's report that he felt threatened was his opinion. No reasonable reader would be misled to think this statement concerned anything but McEnroe's genuine reaction to Palardy's email.

Also, a person has a qualified privilege to make statements to authorities in good faith and without malice. McEnroe's statement about Palardy's inability to log on to the computer sought to contextualize his relationship to Palardy and was an expression of his belief based on observation and consultation with others. Palardy admitted to having trouble with passwords and that resetting a password was harder for him than for someone else. McEnroe's statement, arguably attributable only to AT&T, is also subject to the qualified privilege because it was made to an entity with a duty to investigate. For the same reasons we expressed in regard to the first statement, appellants have proved McEnroe made it without malice.

Finally, Palardy seems overly focused on the fact that police declined to initiate criminal proceedings against him based on the report. The law enforcement conclusion not to refer the matter for criminal prosecution bears no relevance to this defamation claim and in no way vitiates the qualified privilege. The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment concerning McEnroe's police statements.

There's also more, including with regard to allegations that Palardy was "mentally ill" and to matters related to Palardy's hearing problem; you can read all that here. Finally, the court adds,

Palardy [also] argues … that the trial court was improperly motivated by Palardy's federal lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Palardy fails to cite any relevant authority that supports either contention, instead spending his time complaining about the aged, immigrants, and gay people and his perception that they fare better than those in the Deaf community.

UPDATE: For Palardy's side of the story, see his appellate brief; you can also see AT&T and IBM's responsive brief, and Palardy's reply brief, plus Palardy's petition for Texas Supreme Court review.

Comments

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Makes one wonder about IBM's hiring practices.

I worked at a small company dealing with court reporters which hired someone who somehow thought we were going to put him through an aerodynamics PhD program. There was some huge disconnect there, and I never did understand why we hired him or why he took the job.

Sometimes bureaucracies just shit their bed and wake up surprised.

[Ridgeway]

Looks like IBM outsourced this to a temp firm. I wonder if this was part of a neurodivergent staffing program gone awry. Mr. Palardy sounds like he was a little "out there".

[Frankp]

As I write here I keep getting news about the fires right next to where you live. Do you think it's out there if maybe that's Karma? I know those hills like the back of my hand, although I moved long ago. I remember the 93 fire. In the Topanga fire in rode my bike up to the top and the fire truck drove me back down because my tire fell apart, only time I ever saw white people working in la. Black soot covered faces.

[Purple Martin]

Spent more than 20 years as a manager with IBM (after retiring from the Air Force as a MAJCOM Chief of Information Security—thanks Capt Johnson for in the mid-1980's (about my AF 10-year point), handing me a message from our MAJCOM HQ, and saying MSgt Purple, this says we're supposed to have something called an INFOSEC program...find out what it is and start doing it.)

As we rapidly grew the our consulting practice, was heavily involved in hiring and, less often, firing. Also in bringing on the occasional contractor with a specific hard-to-find skill, some who tended to...eccentricity? Think that was more an issue of the types of people drawn to the field, than general bureaucratic tendencies.

But this firing seems to have been done inside of three days—fast even for a contractor. I only encountered anything remotely like this twice. The most extreme of those gave my only experience testifying in court, as a witness prepared by IBM's very good legal folks and needing to do nothing but tell the short, simple truth.

[Frankp]

This job was supposed to be chat bots..Having worked at IBM does it make sense to make me responsible for coordinating shipments of laptops before I even start the job?

[JonFrum]

This got to a court of appeals?

[CJColucci]

While I can't speak to the peculiarities of Texas procedure, in the federal systems and in most states I know anything about, anybody can bring a lawsuit in a trial court, no matter how bad, and can appeal an adverse decision -- at least to the first-level appeals court -- as a matter of right. The case may have absolutely no merit, but that is what the courts are there to decide. Lack of merit doesn't keep you out of the system, it's a determination that the system exists to make.

[SRG2]

Palardy admitted to having trouble with passwords and that resetting a password was harder for him than for someone else.

I'm surprised he was able to send emails...

[Frankp]

It takes time to reset a password if you have to call and get through extensive security proving who you are. That I have a cochlear implant makes it harder because they give you a random password by phone. Why the court thinks this proves my incompetence shows something seriously wrong there.

[ReaderY]

It would seem from the evidence discussed that the defendants’ statements were likely substantially true, and were not even negligent, let alone done with actual malice. So whether the standard is negligence or actual malice doesn’t seem to make any difference to the outcome.

Is it necessary even to discuss the applicable standard if the evidence at summary judgment suggests the plaintiff can’t pass even the lower bar?

[Gwegan]

Engene finally got a job!!!!! Sorry it didn't last long.

[Mark In Florida]

How did this guy ever get hired? No interviews? Reference checks?

[palardy]

They did do a background check for ten years of work and my masters. I did interviewed Red Hat just before IBM bought them so they might have used that interview. They hire quick and the recruiters have goals. IBM was sued for their dei program. The CEO was concerned about no diversity. They're almost entirely Indians now. Indian business machines. Then when you get there your team is all Indians and they don't want you. More likely they were concerned I had more skills than all of them, but you need help getting set up. Indians help each other but pushed me aside, probably bad mouthed me. This is how they take over.

This was at their Foundry in Plano. They still have that building but they shut down the Foundry which was supposed to invent stuff. They weren't inventing anything because they were all kids from India. The manager did have a bunch of patients, but if you look them up their not new ideas. Like he had a patient for a system for driverless cars and street lights. That idea goes back decades. I suppose att can rely on lawyers and their size to claim that. I was nervous because I thought they were building a LLM. That was advanced at the time. It turned out they were using one from Microsoft. I did work on speech recognition previously but this was more complicated.

Anyway, I never started. The whole experience was like going to a banana republic for a job that is just a scam. Jim Jones territory. Thanks to all the lawyers who sold us out. You get paid with foreign money to attack Americans. Traitors.

[Frankp]

I am the Plaintiff. Amazing how this post was written the same day as the decision, and the professor paid more attention to detail than the court. This seems impossible without having the decision on advance. The comments appeared immediately after the post, the same day as the decision, over the Christmas holiday.

The liberal judges here all lost reelection and seem to have taken it out on me. All their facts are all wrong. I coordinated nothing with IBM. In federal court IBM denied I ever worked for them or AT&T. It is true I never started the job. IBM sent the laptop I needed to my old address while I was moving across the country. The password did not work. They attacked me instead of fixing it. This was probably intentional because I had complained about H-1bs. So much for free speech professor!

[Frankp]

I did chat with Eugene and he's a super fast reader so that explains the quick turnaround. Takes me time to go through legal docs.

It is hard to prove malice but that was not so clear here. The court believed everything defendants claim even when it's obvious nonsense. How could someone with a grad degree in computer science not be able to log in to a computer? The manager's statements about that were not consistent. He admitted lying multiple times. He knew I logged in but kept saying I couldn't because initially the password didn't work and it needed to be reset.

Actually there were multiple passwords to log in. AT&T is the one of the backbones of the internet. If one password was all I needed I could have accessed anyone's phone records. People assume tech workers have all access. Maybe at some tiny company. Everywhere else I've worked recently they give you written instructions to log in the first day and they're pages long. Let's see you lawyers get through that. AT&T is totally disorganized. Almost everyone else was Indian and they help each other. You can't do it alone based on ability. That's movie nonsense. Plus I signed agreements not to hack anything.

The court focused on issues related to my hearing, especially the password reset. I needed to call at&t help which everyone knows takes a long time. They claimed that this time was my fault, which is plainly a lie and they know it. Dallas is AT&T territory so the judges should know their customer service is terrible.

Slandering me for taking time to reset the password also contradicts the ADA. The manager referred to deaf mutes when he fired me. (In federal court they deny ever employing me.) In his emails he also mentioned deaf mutes, but in a way the court claims was acceptable. I have a cochlear implant so I'm not deaf. The manager claimed in person cochlear implants don't work. This is bigoted but does that make it not malice if he believes it true?

The court refers to the term deaf mute as outdated, but this is accurate. It is still used in countries like Mexico. Sordo Mudo is deaf mute. Two judges on this case are Latinas, one the first Mexican female judge in this court. They didn't write the decision but should know about Sordo Mudo. In Mexico they still believe deaf people can't communicate because until recently they did not give them any education. If you don't learn language at a young age you can never learn even sign language.

India also has deaf mutes and believe deaf people are incompetent. Several people on my IBM team were from India and I believe they bad mouthed me to the manager and called me a deaf mute. Is it not malice if people from India really believe deaf people are incompetent? This is like the child grooming rapes in England. Is it ok because they don't think it's rape?

Then the court followed a circular logic that it must be true if someone believes it. The court accepted bigotry as fact and even claimed it was proven. I have decades of experience and the court says they proved I'm incompetent because of a password. A few months ago the whole internet crashed because of password issues tied to Crowdstrike. They make passwords hard to reset.

The decision revolves around disability so much it contradicts disability law. The only example of my supposed incompetence noted by the court was resetting one password. I did reset it but they keep saying I did not even as they admitted I did reset it. This is malice.

Courts could use this decision to dismiss any ADA case. In fact the defendants lawyer told me this would happen. The decision contradicts Supreme Court decisions including Perez v Sturgis. from last year. This case involved a Mexican child who became a deaf mute because they didn't bother to teach him.

My appeal will be that defendants didn't prove the manager didn't know he was lying. It at least remains in dispute. His admission of lying and use of deaf mute support the idea that he was motivated by bigotry.

If the decision stands it could be used to attack not only the ADA, but all White men. That is the agenda here. Anyone can make wild claims against a white man and it's assumed to be true. Meanwhile even without dei or affirmative action you can't attack females or minorities or people will dismiss it as racist. In fact to say a Latina with a grad degree in CS can't log in would be racist. It's almost not possible to not be able to log in unless you are a literal deaf mute.

It's not minorities or women that are the real threat but foreign groups that have figured how to use this. People from India claim you're incompetent and that they're all highly skilled. Then they say our schools are failures and India is awesome. I graduated from one of the top 30 universities in the world. I started programming at UCLA extension twenty five years ago. There are no Indian universities in the top 500.

[Nyarlathotep]

You weren't fired because you're deaf, you were fired because you're either incompetent or lazy.

[Frankp]

Before I started this job I filed suit against Cognizant in Portland. I don't know if IBM knew this but the at&t manager found out and was enraged that I was hired. They did a background check but civil suits aren't part of that.

I complained to the court in Portland that this whole job was a sham and I may have been right about that. The password didn't work. They sent my laptop to my old address and did nothing to fix that. I moved 2500 miles and they gave me less than two weeks after offering the job. They attacked me before I got started. They deny I ever even worked for them. That is their argument in federal court.

My Cognizant suit was ada but I wrote it myself on short notice. ( This court was literally under siege for two years.) Mostly I complained about H-1bs. This is free speech in America. You get gang rapped by South Asians if you complain about them. And they have money to hire lawyers who attack Americans for them. They buy politicians and get the judges they want. If you do anything back they claim you're racist and threatening them.

The only good thing here is AI is destroying programming at such a rapid pace these jobs will be gone before the next election. The rush to get green cards for the Indian h-1b backlog is because they know their jobs are gone soon. Expect more extreme attempts to hijack our system in the meantime.

They didn't like me making predictions. Here another one. This has the potential to destroy our system, specifically the legal system. AI is changing law and you can combine that with the loss of trust. Soon we will have a Napoleon who wipes away the current system so you lawyers are gone and most of it is done by computer. Finally , like Shakespeare suggested , we'll kill you.