Rob Lowe recently filed law suits in California against two of his former employees, claiming that they violated a confidentiality agreement that the employees allegedly signed before working for Lowe. Among the laundry list of counts, Lowe claims that the former employees breached the confidentiality agreement and defamed Lowe. The law suits are available here and here.
What is interesting about this whole thing is that prior to filing the law suits, Lowe blogged about it in a post on the Huffington Post. In his post, Lowe claims that one of his former employees had blackmailed Lowe, wanting, “$1.5 million by the end of the week or she will accuse us both of a vicious laundry list of false terribles”. Minutes after the law suits were filed, Lowe’s attorney faxed a copy of the lawsuits to TMZ.com, who promptly posted them. Upon hearing of the alleged blackmail attempt, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff contacted Lowe to offer to help. Lowe is quoted as telling the Sheriff’s Office, “Your involvement isn't necessary. We're going to handle the matter civilly.”
To me, this whole thing smacks of nothing more than a public relations ploy by Lowe and his handlers to get in front of potentially damaging revelations by former employees. In reading both of the law suits, it seems that they were written more as press releases, rather than legitimate complaints. If Lowe really was being blackmailed (which is a crime), why would he turn away police involvement?
Even more ominous for Lowe (and his attorney), is that it does not seem that either complaint would survive a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim. Not only does either complaint attach a copy of the alleged confidentiality agreement, but the alleged agreements are not described in any sort of detail. Also, the complaints do not meet the pleading requirements in order to state a claim for defamation, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, trespass or abuse of process. For example, the complaints just say defendant defamed Lowe, without stating what the defamatory statement was, how it was defamatory or where the defamation occurred – all elements which are required to state a claim for defamation. Not to mention that as a public figure, Lowe has to meet a heightened pleading requirement to show defamation and must show that the allegedly defamatory statements were made with actual malice (knowledge or reckless disregard for the truth) under the US Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
Putting all of the above aside for a minute, it could be that Lowe’s law suits are what are known as Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) suits, which is a law suit that attempts to stifle comment in connection with a public issue. As Lowe is a public figure, it could be argued that any public comments about his life are a public issue. Several states, including California (Cal. Civ. Pro. §425.16), have enacted laws to combat SLAPP suits. If the Court determines that a law suit is a SLAPP suit, the Court can sanction the filer of the SLAPP suit and award attorney fees and costs.
Could it be that there was no blackmail and Lowe is just using his law suits as a way to hush up former employees who might say some unflattering things about Lowe (and drum up some publicity for himself)? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
