Tort: Statement about ‘poor leadership’ isn’t actionable under defamation law

Where a man sued his former employer and supervisor for defamation and defamation per se, but the first challenged statement, viewed in its entirety, presents a nonactionable, subjective view, the circuit court correctly ruled that it was not an actionable statement.

Background

Sean Boyer sued his former employer, Smith & Nephew Inc., and his former supervisor, Todd Douglas Vischer, for defamation and defamation per se, related to three statements Vischer allegedly made: (1) “Mr. Boyer was a poor leader because he caused sales representatives to resign”; “Mr. Boyer did not effectively manage logistics for the Old Dominion District” and “Mr. Boyer caused a fifty (50) percent decline in sales in the Old Dominion District.”

The circuit court sustained appellees’ demurrer as to two of the statements on the grounds that they were nonactionable statements of opinion. But the circuit court overruled the demurrer as to the third statement, that Boyer “caused a fifty (50) percent decline in sales.”

After a two-day trial, a jury found that Boyer did not prove that Vischer had made the “decline in sales” statement. The circuit court entered judgment for appellees, and dismissed Boyer’s claims with prejudice. Boyer argues that the circuit court erred in sustaining in part the demurrer on the grounds that the two statements criticizing his leadership were statements of opinion.

Leadership attributes

Boyer argues that the statement, “Boyer was a poor leader because he caused sales representatives to resign” was actionable because it was “a statement of cause and effect” rather than one of opinion. This court disagrees.

The first part of the statement alleging Boyer was a poor leader is facially a matter of opinion, as it is “relative in nature and depend[s] largely upon the speaker’s viewpoint.” But the latter part reveals a factual justification for that opinion, i.e., the resignation of sales representatives. Combined, the negative character trait cited as the reason for the resignations is “a matter of opinion which is not subject to proof.” As such, the statement, viewed in its entirety, presents a nonactionable, subjective view and the circuit court correctly ruled that it was not an actionable statement.

Logistics

Boyer claims that the circuit court erred by holding that the statement, “Boyer’s poor leadership, both in the logistics of procuring and providing [Smith & Nephew] equipment to sales representatives and the management of sales representatives, were causes of [Smith & Nephew’s] declining sales in the Old Dominion District” was not actionable. But the circuit court never made such a ruling, because this precise statement never appeared in either Boyer’s original or amended complaint.

Instead, the second statement upon which the circuit court sustained appellees’ demurrer was: “Mr. Boyer did not effectively manage logistics for the Old Dominion District.” This is not the statement with respect to which Boyer assigns error in his brief before this court. He thus assigns error to a ruling on a statement that the circuit court did not make, so “there is no ruling for [this court] to review.”

Affirmed.

Boyer v. Smith & Nephew Inc., Record No. 1634-24-3, Sept. 23, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Malveaux). From the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke (Ciaffone). Thomas E. Strelka (Virginia Employment Law, on brief), for appellant. Yvette V. Gatling (Tiffany din Fagel Tse; Littler Mendelson, P.C., on brief), for appellees. VLW 025-7-266. 7 pp.