Massachusetts court hears Missler versus Lockheed Martin defamation immunity arguments

The oral arguments for the case of Missler versus Lockheed Martin Corporation took place on May 5, 2025, presided over by Judges Meade, Shin, and Tan. The central issue discussed was whether a private defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, should be granted absolute immunity regarding statements made about its employees in government reports.

Nina Callan, representing the appellant Joanne Missler, argued that Massachusetts law generally disfavors absolute immunity, particularly in cases involving private corporations. She emphasized that this case is of first impression in both Massachusetts and the First Circuit, meaning it could set a significant precedent. Callan pointed out that while some jurisdictions allow for absolute immunity for high government officials, Massachusetts has indicated a reluctance to extend such protections to private entities.

The judges engaged in a detailed examination of the implications of granting absolute immunity. They questioned whether the court could apply federal common law immunity in this context and discussed the balance between protecting national security interests and allowing individuals to seek redress for defamation. Callan argued against the notion that a private corporation should be able to make potentially damaging statements about employees without accountability, asserting that such immunity could lead to a chilling effect on truthful reporting.

Throughout the proceedings, the judges sought clarification on various legal precedents, including the Becker case, which has been cited in discussions of immunity. Callan referenced several cases from other jurisdictions that have limited the scope of the Becker ruling, suggesting that these cases could inform the court's decision.

The discussion also touched on the specific circumstances surrounding Missler's termination and the subsequent impact on her career, including the presence of a red flag on her record that hindered her employment opportunities. Callan argued that the consequences of Lockheed Martin's statements were severe and lasting, warranting a reevaluation of the protections afforded to the corporation.

As the arguments concluded, the judges were tasked with considering the broader implications of their ruling, not only for Missler but for the standards of accountability applicable to private contractors in similar situations. The outcome of this case could have significant ramifications for the intersection of employment law and corporate immunity in Massachusetts.