Connection lost
Server error
Zinda v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer published the reason for an employee’s termination (“falsification of emp. forms”) in a company newsletter. The court found the publication was conditionally privileged but remanded for a jury to decide if the privilege was abused by excessive publication.
Legal Significance: Establishes that an employer’s internal communication to employees about a co-worker’s termination is protected by a conditional privilege for both defamation and invasion of privacy claims, but this privilege can be lost if abused, such as through excessive publication.
Zinda v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Allan Zinda was hired by Louisiana Pacific Corp. (LPC). On his employment and medical forms, he answered “No” to questions about prior back injuries or broken bones, despite having previously fallen from a roof and sustaining such injuries. He did, however, mention the fall in a separate section of the form. Approximately one year later, Zinda filed a products liability lawsuit against LPC related to the same fall, alleging permanent disabilities. Upon receiving the complaint, LPC’s personnel manager compared the lawsuit’s allegations with Zinda’s employment forms, concluded he had falsified them, and terminated his employment. LPC then published a notice in its internal company newsletter, the “Waferboard Press,” stating Zinda was terminated for “Falsification of Emp. forms.” Approximately 160 copies were placed in the employee lunchroom. Employees were not restricted from taking the newsletters home, and a copy was seen by Zinda’s wife’s co-workers at a local hospital. Zinda sued LPC for defamation and invasion of privacy. LPC asserted the defense of conditional privilege.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a conditional privilege apply to an employer’s defamatory statement about an employee’s termination published in a company newsletter, and if so, can the distribution of that newsletter to all employees constitute an abuse of that privilege as a matter of law?
Yes, the communication was protected by a conditional privilege, and whether that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehe
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a conditional privilege apply to an employer’s defamatory statement about an employee’s termination published in a company newsletter, and if so, can the distribution of that newsletter to all employees constitute an abuse of that privilege as a matter of law?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the application of the common interest conditional privilege to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in
Legal Rule
An employer's communication to its employees regarding the reason for a co-worker's Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit a
Legal Analysis
The Wisconsin Supreme Court grounded its decision in the "common interest" conditional Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer’s statement in a company newsletter about the reason for
