The reviews at issue stated that Madan was “narcissistic,” “manipulative” and engaged in “gaslighting” employees, and that DCT was “toxic,” had a problem with a “lack of honesty and integrity” and offered “lousy pay and benefits.” Plaintiffs argued that these statements were false and defamatory.
The Court found the highly unflattering statements made about the CEO “constitute[d] non-actionable opinion, loose and figurative terms, and/or rhetorical hyperbole.” The Court noted that, under governing Texas law, an essential element of a defamation claim is that the alleged defamatory statement is a statement of fact rather than opinion. The Court further noted that the CEO’s sworn affidavit did not “even try to show the falsity of the statements” about her, despite having the burden of establishing a prima facie case that these statements were false.
The Court also held that the company reviews, including those referencing a “lack of honesty and integrity” and “lousy pay and benefits” at DCT, constituted “non-actionable opinion.” The Court again noted that plaintiffs failed to provide factual evidence that would contradict these statements.
The Court at the conclusion of oral argument remarked that this was “not a close case.”
