CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals partially reversed, partially confirmed and remanded a circuit court ruling in lawsuit involving McDonald's and a customer who claimed libel and slander in a dispute over a chicken sandwich.
John R. Zsigray ordered a plain chicken sandwich at a McDonald's drive-thru in Glenville, but he was only given a plain chicken patty with no bun. He returned to the drive-thru, explained that his order was incorrect and asked for a refund.
The person at the first window directed him to the second window, where Langman was working. In Zsigray's testimony, he claimed Langman attempted to lecture him about the sandwich order, but because he wanted a refund and not a lecture, used foul language with her and demanded his refund, which she gave him and he drove away.
Langman immediately called the West Virginia State Police and spoke with Trooper K.J. Varner, who came to the restaurant to interview Langman and get her written statement regarding what had happened.
"The investigation revealed that Mr. Zsigray had been involved in a prior incident at this McDonald’s in which he used vulgar language toward Ms. Langman and allegedly used a racial epithet toward an African-American employee over a dispute involving pancake syrup," the opinion states.
Zsigray was charged with criminal harassment.Langman testified during his trial and a jury found him guilty of criminal harassment.
Zsigray then filed a lawsuit against Langman and McDonald's, alleging defamation, outrage and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defamation claim was based on Langman's oral and written statements as well as her testimony at his magistrate court trial.
The circuit court granted a motion by Langman to dismiss the defamation claim on April 17, 2017, and the circuit court determined that the statements she made were privileged. The case proceeded to discovery on claims of outrage and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
After discovery, Langman filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims and the circuit court granted the motion. Zsigray then appealed.
The Supreme Court, in a March 27 opinion by Justice Tim Armstead, agreed with the circuit court that Langman's testimony during the magistrate court trial was entitled to absolute immunity regarding the defamation claim, but the court disagreed with the circuit court on absolute privilege regarding her statements to Varner during his investigation of the chicken-sandwich incident.
"We disagree with the circuit court’s ruling and conclude that Ms. Langman’s statements made to Trooper Varner during his investigation are potentially entitled to qualified privilege, rather than absolute privilege," Armstead wrote.
The court affirmed the circuit court's order granting Langman's summary judgment motion on outrage and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
"We affirm the circuit court’s April 20, 2018, order granting summary judgment on the outrage and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims," Armstead wrote. "We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the circuit court’s April 17, 2017, order granting Ms. Langman’s motion to dismiss the defamation claim."
The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals: 18-0461