The fired CEO of a telehealth company sued his former employer’s customer, alleging that the customer wrongfully pressured his employer to fire him after a video went viral of him confronting a boy wearing a prom dress. The lower court granted summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s tortious interference claims. Plaintiff sought review with the Sixth Circuit. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the former employer’s customer.
What happened
In April 2021, plaintiff encountered teenagers taking prom photos at a Tennessee hotel. During this encounter, plaintiff told a teenage boy wearing a red prom dress that he “looked like an idiot.” Another teen recorded the interaction and posted it online, where it quickly went viral. Actress Kathy Griffin shared the video with her two million Twitter followers, identifying plaintiff.
The video created significant problems for plaintiff’s former employer. The company’s board of directors expressed concern about how plaintiff’s behavior reflected on the company.
Defendant, the former employer’s largest customer, soon received many messages expressing disappointment about its business relationship with a company whose CEO behaved this way. Defendant arranged a call with the company to discuss the situation.
According to plaintiff, defendant threatened to end its contract with the company if the company did not fire plaintiff. Shortly after this call, the company’s directors voted to terminate plaintiff’s employment. The next day, defendant publicly stated that the company “stepped up to do the right thing” by firing plaintiff.
The lawsuit
Plaintiff sued defendant (but not his former employer) for tortious interference with his employment contract and tortious interference with his employment relationship under Tennessee law. Defendant asked the court for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff couldn’t prove his claims even if all facts were viewed in his favor.
The Court’s decision
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to defendant, rejecting plaintiff’s claims for two main reasons.
First, plaintiff’s tortious interference with contract claim failed because the company did not breach any contract when it fired him. Plaintiff’s employment contract allowed the company to fire him with or without cause. Since the company had the legal right to terminate plaintiff’s employment, it could not have breached the contract by doing so. Under Tennessee law, a claim for tortious interference with a contract requires an actual breach of contract.
Second, plaintiff’s tortious interference with employment relationship claim failed because he could not show that defendant acted with an improper motive or used improper means. The court found no evidence that defendant acted with the primary purpose of injuring plaintiff. Instead, the record showed defendant sought to protect its business from public criticism. Additionally, defendant’s contract with the company gave it the right to stop doing business with the company “for any reason or no reason,” so, in the Court’s mind, threatening to exercise this right was not improper.
Three reasons why this case matters:
- It clarifies that claims for tortious interference with contracts require an actual breach of contract, which does not occur when an employer exercises its contractual right to terminate an at-will employee.
- It demonstrates that businesses can take steps to protect their reputation without facing liability for tortious interference, as long as they act within their contractual rights.
- It illustrates how viral videos capturing personal conduct can have significant professional consequences, especially for people in leadership positions.
Johnson v. University Hospitals Health System, Inc., 2025 WL 637442 (6th Cir. February 27, 2025)