Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Scouten v. Amerisave Mortgage Corp.
Citations: 643 S.E.2d 759; 284 Ga. App. 242; 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 625; 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 187Docket: A06A1931
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; February 28, 2007; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Stephen Scouten, a former employee of Amerisave Mortgage Corporation, appealed after the trial court dismissed his claims under the Georgia RICO Act, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Scouten alleged that Amerisave engaged in fraudulent practices by advertising lower mortgage rates than those actually offered and that it resolved complaints through payoffs to conceal the scheme. He claimed he was fired for refusing to sign a declaration related to these practices and that Amerisave disseminated false information about his termination for theft to employees without a legitimate need for that information. The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that Scouten failed to establish that his injuries were directly linked to any predicate offense under RICO, as he was terminated not due to the fraudulent practices but for refusing to participate in them. Additionally, the court noted that there was no evidence of witness tampering, as Scouten did not adequately allege that Amerisave threatened him with termination to induce him to sign the declaration. Regarding the defamation claim, the court ruled that Scouten's allegations did not demonstrate that false statements were made outside the corporation, which is necessary for a defamation suit. Finally, the court held that Scouten did not show that Amerisave employees' conduct was extreme or outrageous, thus failing to substantiate his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed, with Judges Blackburn and Adams concurring. In Nicholson v. Windham, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an employee's RICO claim, which stemmed from her termination due to refusal to engage in fraudulent activities. Subsequent cases illustrate that threats of lawsuits to compel testimony recantation do not qualify as RICO predicate acts. Additionally, in Atlanta Multispecialty Surgical Assoc. v. DeKalb Med. Center, the court upheld a summary judgment favoring an employer based on an administrator's defamation being considered intracorporate. Similarly, in Galardi v. Steele-Inman, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was granted due to a lack of evidence that the employee privy to the defamatory statement was unauthorized to receive such information. Lastly, in Peoples v. Guthrie, the court clarified that while accusations regarding dishonesty in employment may be distressing, they do not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.