GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

Jessica Cockram sued her former employer, Genesco, Inc., after the company made public statements about Coekram’s involvement in an incident in which a pernicious racial slur appeared on a return receipt that Cockram handed to a customer. The district court dismissed Cock-ram’s claim for false light invasion of privacy and granted summary judgment in favor of Genesco on her defamation claim. Cockram now appeals, and we affirm the dismissal of the false light claim and reverse and remand the defamation claim.

I. BACKGROUND1

On October 17, 2008, in the course of her duties at a Journeys retail store owned by Genesco, Cockram assisted Keith Slater, an African-American, with a merchandise return. For efficiency in processing the return, Cockram entered a generic phone number, (913) 555-5555, into the store register. Unbeknownst to Cockram, Richard Hamill, a former employee whom Journeys had fired prior to this incident, had inserted into a store-level database a racial slur as one of the names associated with the phone number Cockram entered. Cock-ram unwittingly selected the entry with the racial slur from the list of names associated with the phone number. She then printed a return receipt that included the racial slur, signed it without reading it, and handed it to Slater.

The next day, Slater, accompanied by members of his family, returned to Journeys with the return receipt. Slater’s sister demanded Cockram’s name, and Cock-ram complied. Slater and his family were outraged about the incident and told people in and near Journeys about what had happened, resulting in what Cockram described as a “riot.”

On October 20, Genesco fired Cockram. In response to inquiries about the incident, Genesco provided a statement (“first statement”) on October 21, 2008, reading:

While we are continuing to investigate this incident, it now appears that an employee in one of our stores entered highly inappropriate statements in a form used to process a merchandise re*1050turn. Needless to say, such an act was not authorized by Journeys, and will not be tolerated. This employee has been terminated.

At Journeys, we pride ourselves on valuing and respecting every customer. We are shocked and sickened that a former associate could be responsible for an act so out of keeping with our culture and our values. We profoundly regret this incident.

Multiple news stories regarding the incident quoted the first statement, and some people posting comments to the online versions of those stories labeled as racist the involved employee. Additionally, after Genesco released the statement, Cockram received numerous messages and calls from people who called her a racist, blamed her for the racial slur, and threatened her. These accusations and threats made Cockram fearful, and she moved out of her apartment and temporarily placed her young child with her parents.

On October 22, 2008, Genesco learned that a different former employee, later identified as Hamill, may have been involved with the return-receipt incident. Genesco determined that the substance of the first statement was valid, but it also issued the following clarifying statement (“clarification”):

The inappropriate references were entered by employees in the Overland Park store in a store-level customer database. No preprogrammed transaction codes were involved.

We are currently working to develop mechanisms that allow us to monitor the store-level customer databases more closely than has been possible in the past, in an effort to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

Cockram sued Genesco for defamation and false light invasion of privacy based on the content of the first statement and the clarification. The district court granted Genesco’s motion to dismiss Cockram’s false light claim because it concluded that under Missouri law “there is no cause of action for false light invasion of privacy when recovery is sought for alleged defamatory statements” and that Cockram’s false light claim was “based solely on what she explicitly pleads were defamatory comments.” Cockram v. Genesco, Inc., No. 09-01007-CV-W-JTM, 2010 WL 2349064, at *1-2 (W-D.Mo. June 8, 2010) (emphasis omitted). As to the defamation claim, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Genesco because it determined that Genesco’s statements were substantially true. Cockram now appeals both rulings.

II. DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship, and the parties agree that Missouri law governs. See Kaufmann v. Siemens Med. Solutions USA, Inc., 638 F.3d 840, 843 (8th Cir.2011). We must apply Missouri law as declared by the Supreme Court of Missouri. Council Tower Ass’n v. Axis Specialty Ins. Co., 630 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir.2011). “If the Supreme Court of Missouri has not addressed an issue, we must predict how the court would rule, and we follow decisions from the intermediate state courts when they are the best evidence of Missouri law.” Eubank v. Kan. City Power & Light Co., 626 F.3d 424, 427 (8th Cir.2010).

A. Defamation

In a defamation action, a plaintiff must establish: “1) publication, 2) of a defamatory statement, 3) that identifies the plaintiff, 4) that is false, 5) that is published with the requisite degree of fault, and 6) damages the plaintiffs reputation.” Missouri ex rel. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc. v. Ross, 163 S.W.3d 922, 929 (Mo.2005) *1051(quoting Overcast v. Billings Mut. Ins. Co., 11 S.W.3d 62, 70 (Mo.2000)). In seeking summary judgment, Genesco argued that Cockram could not establish that the statements were false, that Genesco published them with the requisite degree of fault, and that Cockram’s reputation was damaged. The district court addressed only whether the statements were false and determined that they were not. On appeal, Genesco reasserts its arguments that Cockram cannot establish the latter three of the six required elements. See Shelton v. Kennedy Funding, Inc., 622 F.3d 943, 952 (8th Cir.2010) (“We may affirm the district court on any ground finding support in the record.”). We now consider the arguments relating to these three elements.

“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, including its interpretation of state law.” Raines v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 637 F.3d 872, 875 (8th Cir.2011). The district court properly granted summary judgment to Genesco if, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Cockram, there is “no genuine issue of material fact” and Genesco “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Clark v. Matthews Int’l Corp., 639 F.3d 391, 397 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting Schultz v. Windstream Commc’ns, Inc., 600 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir.2010)). “A genuine issue of material fact exists if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for” Cockram. See id. (quoting Humphries v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist., 580 F.3d 688, 692 (8th Cir.2009)).

1. Falsity of the Statements

We must determine whether the “gist” or “sting” of the statements was false. See Turnbull v. Herald Co., 459 S.W.2d 516, 519 (Mo.Ct.App.1970). Under Missouri law, a statement is not considered “false” for purposes of defamation simply because it contains an erroneous fact. Thurston v. Ballinger, 884 S.W.2d 22, 26 (Mo.Ct.App.1994) (“A person is not bound to exact accuracy in his statements about another, if the statements are essentially true.”). Rather, if a statement is essentially true, such that its divergence from the truth “would have no different effect on the reader’s mind than that produced by the literal truth,” the statement is not actionable in defamation. See id. (quoting Turnbull, 459 S.W.2d at 519).

As a preliminary matter, we note that counsel for Genesco conceded at oral argument that the first statement could be read as referring to Cockram and that Genesco knew prior to issuing the first statement that Cockram’s name had appeared in news reports. Moreover, Roger Sisson, an officer at Genesco, agreed during his deposition that the words “[t]his employee has been terminated” in the first statement referred to Cockram. Thus, there is no real dispute that the reference to an “employee” in the first statement could be interpreted as referring to Cockram.

Genesco argues that the first statement was truthful as a matter of law because (1) Cockram did enter a racial slur into a form by selecting it from a list of names, and (2) her action was not authorized because she used a generic phone number, rather than entering Slater’s actual information into the register as required by Genesco policy. We are not persuaded. When the entirety of the first statement is considered in the light most favorable to Cockram, it can be read as asserting that Cockram intentionally directed a racial slur at Slater, not just that she violated company policy requiring the entry of a customer’s actual phone number to generate a return receipt. In other words, the first statement did not necessarily assert that Cockram was terminated merely because she violated company policy by entering a generic phone number *1052into the register and generating a return receipt containing a racial slur without being conscious of the offensive output. It is not “[n]eedless to say” that Genesco would not authorize entering a generic phone number and blindly selecting a name entry in order to expedite a customer’s return. And a reasonable jury may not consider such a practice by itself to be so out of line with Genesco’s culture and values as to make Genesco “shocked and sickened.” Instead, the use of these phrases in Genes-co’s statement reasonably could be read to imply that Cockram intentionally communicated the racial slur. Because Cockram denies that she intentionally produced a return receipt with a racial slur, and produced evidence supporting this assertion, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the gist of the first statement was true. Thus, the district court erred by determining as a matter of law that the first statement was substantially true.

Regarding the clarification, Genesco disputes whether that statement referred to Cockram. To the contrary, the first statement reasonably could be read as saying that Cockram entered the racial slur into a form, and the clarification does nothing to indicate that Cockram was not one of the “employees” who entered the racial slur into the database. Furthermore, the clarification used the plural term “employees,” and Genesco has never contended that anyone other than Hamill and Cockram was involved in the return-receipt incident. Therefore, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find that the word “employees” in the clarification included Cockram. A jury also could view as false the clarification’s statement that Cockram entered the racial slur into a “database.” Even if we were to accept as true that Cockram entered the racial slur into a “form,” as stated in the first statement, her selection of the racial slur from a list of names previously stored in a database does not equate to entering the racial slur into the database in the first place.2 Indeed, Genesco’s investigation revealed that Hamill entered the racial slur into the database. Thus, the district court erroneously found as a matter of law that the clarification was substantially true.3

2. Requisite Degree of Fault

Genesco argues that Cockram did not present sufficient evidence that Genesco published the relevant statements with actual malice, “that is, with knowledge that the statements were false, or with a reckless disregard as to whether they were true or false,” which is the applicable standard if Cockram was a limited-purpose public figure. See Warner v. Kan. City Star Co., 726 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Mo.Ct.App.1987). However, if Cockram was simply a private figure, she only needs to show negligence on the part of Genesco, even if Genesco’s statement is considered to relate to an issue of “public concern or interest.” See Englezos v. Newspress & Gazette Co., 980 S.W.2d 25, 30-31 (Mo.Ct.App.1998). Thus, we must decide whether Cockram was a limited-purpose public figure or, as Cockram contends, a private figure.

*1053In explaining the rationale for the differing burdens borne by public figures and private figures in defamation suits, the Supreme Court noted that public figures are more likely to have access to the media to minimize a defamatory statement’s “adverse impact on reputation,” and, more importantly, public figures typically “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved,” thus “invitfing] attention and comment.” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 344-45, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). The Court did state, however, that, “[h]ypothetically, it may be possible for someone to become a public figure through no purposeful action of his own, but the instances of truly involuntary public figures must be exceedingly rare.” Id. at 345, 94 S.Ct. 2997. A limited-purpose public figure “is defined as one who ‘voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.’ ” Stepnes v. Ritschel, 663 F.3d 952, 963 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting Gertz, 418 U.S. at 351, 94 S.Ct. 2997). An examination of “the ‘nature and extent of an individual’s participation in the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation’ ... [allows for a determination of] whether the individual has voluntarily and purposefully injected himself into that controversy in an attempt to influence the resolution of the controversy.” Lundell Mfg. Co. v. Am. Broad. Cos., 98 F.3d 351, 362 (8th Cir.1996) (quoting Gertz, 418 U.S. at 352, 94 S.Ct. 2997).

Here, Coekram entered a generic phone number into the register that resulted in a racial slur appearing on a return receipt and found herself in the middle of a public controversy. She did not “voluntarily inject” herself into a preexisting controversy, nor did she knowingly produce the racial slur that initiated the controversy. It was only after the controversy arose and Genesco blamed Coekram for the racial slur by issuing the first statement that Coekram responded to media inquiries in an attempt to salvage her reputation. See Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 134-35, 99 S.Ct. 2675, 61 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979) (stating that the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure based on the plaintiffs access to the media was unavailing where, inter alia, the plaintiffs access to the media occurred after the alleged libel). When Coekram ultimately did agree to be interviewed, she insisted that her name not be used, thus indicating an intent to defend her reputation among those who knew that she was the subject of the reports while avoiding any additional exposure among those unaware of her involvement in the incident. And, even though Coekram succeeded in gaining some access to the media, the more important point is that she did not voluntarily place herself at the center of controversy, but merely found herself there. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 344-45, 94 S.Ct. 2997 (“More important than the likelihood that private individuals will lack effective opportunities for rebuttal, there is a compelling normative consideration underlying the distinction between public and private defamation plaintiffs.... [Public figures] invite attention and comment.”). Thus, we conclude that Coekram was a private figure, not a limited purpose public figure. Because private figures need only show negligence to recover for defamation, and Genesco does not argue that Coekram failed to produce sufficient evidence of negligence, Genesco’s argument for affirmance based on the “requisite degree of fault” element fails.

3. Damages to Cockram’s reputation

Under Missouri law, “proof of actual reputational harm is an absolute prerequisite in a defamation action.” Ken *1054 ney v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 100 S.W.3d 809, 817 (Mo.2003). Because “rules of per se and per quod ” defamation do not apply in Missouri, a plaintiff must always prove actual damages. Id. at 815. “To demonstrate actual damages [in Missouri], plaintiffs must show that defamatory statements caused a quantifiable professional or personal injury, such as interference with job performance, psychological or emotional distress, or depression.” Arthaud v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 170 F.3d 860, 862 (8th Cir.1999). “[T]he question of whether a plaintiffs damages were caused by the defamatory statement is for. the jury to decide,” Topper v. Midwest Div., Inc., 306 S.W.3d 117, 130 (Mo.Ct.App.2010) (quoting Johnson v. Allstate Indem. Co., 278 S.W.3d 228, 235 (Mo.Ct.App.2009)), unless a court can determine that a plaintiff failed to meet her burden of production, see Nazeri v. Mo. Valley Coll., 860 S.W.2d 303, 314 (Mo.1993).

Genesco argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Cockram “failed to present any evidence that Genes-co’s statements caused her reputational damage and cannot differentiate between damages that she allegedly sustained as a result of Genesco’s statements and damages resulting from the media’s coverage of the receipt incident before Genesco published any statements.” When the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to Cockram and all reasonable inferences are made in her favor, see BP Group, Inc. v. Kloeber, 664 F.3d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir.2012), the evidence is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find actual reputational harm flowing from Genesco’s statements.

Cockram argues that there are multiple pieces of evidence indicating that her reputation was harmed by Genesco’s statements. She stated that “[p]eople posting comments to media stories carrying Genesco’s statement would call me racist.” For example, one person writing a comment in response to an online article containing Genesco’s first statement said that a “racist teenager entered the words on their [sic] own” and was “rightfully fired.” Cockram also received numerous messages containing threats and accusations of racism after Genesco released the first statement. Cockram claims that these “accusations and threats made [her] afraid and [she] moved out of [her] apartment and placed [her] child with [her] parents temporarily.” Cockram’s father confirmed that Cockram was so concerned about the threats that she asked him to allow her daughter to live with him for a period. Furthermore, Cockram’s father stated that his family’s friends and acquaintances contacted him and questioned whether Cockram was racist after the stories with Genesco’s statements appeared. Thus, we cannot say as a matter of law that Cockram cannot show actual reputational harm.4

Genesco relies on Kenney v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in arguing that even if Cock-ram can demonstrate that she incurred reputational harm, she cannot differentiate between harm from Genesco’s statements and any harm from the news reports that did not include Genesco’s statements. In Kenney, the plaintiff initially had prevailed at trial on her claim that a poster was defamatory during a portion of the time *1055that it was displayed. 100 S.W.3d at 811. The defendant appealed, and the court noted that it appeared that the plaintiff failed to distinguish the harm from the poster at issue from the harm resulting from a television broadcast, ninety-nine identical posters, and the poster at issue when it was displayed at a time that the information was accurate. Id. at 818. However, the court also noted that the plaintiff “felt that the injury to her reputation from the poster was ‘equally painful and devastating1 to that of the television broadcast’ ” and “believed ‘they [were] the same kind of injury.’ ” Id. at 812 (alteration in original). The court then observed that a prior decision “denied recovery because the plaintiff ‘could not differentiate between the damages, if any, attributable to the defendant and the damages attributable to [a third person].’ ” Id. at 818 (quoting Taylor v. Chapman, 927 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Mo.Ct.App.1996)). Ultimately, however, the Kenney court remanded for a new trial, rather than reversing, stating that although “Kenney may face substantial obstacles in meeting her burden of proof on retrial,” it could not “say that it is impossible for her to present a submissible case.”5 Id.

Cockram is in a better position to delineate the source of her reputational harm than was the plaintiff in Kenney. For ■\example, comments to online news stories i?onb ining portions of Genesco’s first séí inent provide evidence that some readers viewed Cockram as a racist after reading Genesco’s statement. Additionally, iji contrast to the plaintiff in Kenney, Cocfcram did not suggest that Genesco’s statements placing blame on her inflicted the “same kind of injury” as the generic news stories covering the incident. Indeed, a news story that includes Genesco’s statement placing blame on Cockram is likely to cause a greater degree of harm to reputation than one simply providing general information about the incident. Finally, Cockram’s receipt of personal threats and messages accusing her of racism after Genesco released its statements (where Genesco points to no instances in the record of Cockram receiving such personal messages before Genesco’s first statement despite three prior days of news coverage) also supports her causation argument. Under these circumstances, a reasonable jury could conclude that at least some of the reputational harm Cockram suffered resulted from Genesco’s statements blaming her for using the racial slur as opposed to news stories that did not mention Genesco’s statements. See Topper, 306 S.W.3d at 129-30 (determining that a “jury may well have inferred” that false statistics “played a role in the removal” of the plaintiff from his position when the statistics were published prior to his termination and made his management “look very bad,” even though other negative statements were made about the plaintiff that could have contributed to the loss of his job). Accordingly, we cannot say that a properly instructed jury will be unable to address reasonably the question of causation. See Kenney, 100 S.W.3d at 818 (stating, where there is evidence that some harm may have been caused by a non-actionable statement, that a jury should be instructed to attribute liability to a defendant only for loss allocable to an actionable statement). Therefore, we decline to affirm on this ground.

In sum, Cockram is a private figure and a reasonable jury could conclude that Gen*1056esco’s statements were false, that they harmed Cockram’s reputation, and that this harm was distinguishable from any harm flowing from the generic news stories. Hence, the district court erred by granting summary judgment to Genesco on Cockram’s defamation claim.

B. False Light Invasion of Privacy

Cockram argues that the district court erred in holding that Missouri does not recognize a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy when a claim is premised solely on alleged defamatory statements. We review de novo the dismissal of Cockram’s claim, “accepting the allegations contained in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Express Scripts, Inc. v. Aegon Direct Mktg. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 695, 698 (8th Cir.2008) (internal citation omitted). We agree with the district court that Missouri would not recognize Cockram’s claim for false light invasion of privacy under the facts of this case.

In Sullivan v. Pulitzer Broadcasting Co., the Missouri Supreme Court observed that it had “not yet recognized a cause of action apart from defamation for a ‘false light’ invasion of privacy.” 709 S.W.2d 475, 478 (Mo.1986). The Sullivan court noted that “[m]any questions now surround the ‘false light’ theory, one of which is whether such an action is even necessary.” Id. It further observed that “the ‘false light’ theory under [Restatement (Second) of Torts] § 652E resembles a defamation suit because each action requires the publication of false information.” Id. (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). In fact, Sullivan stated that “[t]he only apparent difference between false light and defamation is that the latter protects one’s interest in his or her reputation, while the former protects one’s interest in the right to be let alone.” Id. at 479 (emphasis in original) (quotation omitted). Ultimately, the court declined to recognize a separate tort for false light invasion of privacy under the facts of the case. Id. at 480-81. Cockram, however, latches on to the fact that the court did hypothesize about factual scenarios that could potentially justify recognition of the tort in the future. Id. at 480.

To determine whether Missouri would view Cockram’s allegations as stating a claim for false light invasion of privacy, it is helpful to examine the facts and rationale of Sullivan. In Sullivan, the plaintiff alleged that news broadcasts conveyed the false impression that the plaintiff, who was then a city employee, improperly arranged for an architect employed by the city to prepare plans for the plaintiffs home and was building the home with materials stolen from the city. Id. at 475. The court stated that it was “not confronted with a situation where a party alleges that another has created a false impression in the public eye” and that the case was “nothing more than the classic defamation action where one party alleges that the other published a false accusation concerning a statement of fact.” Id. at 481. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiffs substitution of “the word ‘false’ for the phrase ‘false impression’ ” and an aliegation of “an injury to reputation” with, one for “an injury to his reputation and ari injury to his right to be let alone” w/as insufficient to treat the “claim as anything other than a defamation action.” Id.

In Nazeri v. Missouri Valley College, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed its commitment to Sullivan by declining to recognize a false light claim premised on statements accusing a state employee of being prejudiced against a religious college, being “opposed to church schools having education programs,” and leaving her husband and children to live with a *1057homosexual. 860 S.W.2d at 306-07, 317. The court labeled the claim as a “classic defamation action.” Id. at 317 (quoting Sullivan, 709 S.W.2d at 481).

With an understanding of these Missouri Supreme Court cases, we now turn to the complaint in the present matter. In its false light count, Cockram’s complaint states that Genesco created a “false impression” with knowledge or reckless disregard of its “falsity.” Just as in Sullivan, the mere use of the words “false impression” is not sufficient to convert the claim to one of false light invasion of privacy. See Sullivan, 709 S.W.2d at 481. In addition, the complaint’s paragraph alleging harm for the false light claim alleges “loss of reputation” and is a verbatim copy of the paragraph alleging harm for the defamation count. Thus, Cockram sought to recover on her false light count for untrue statements that caused injury to her reputation. Nazeri indicates that such an action is properly one for defamation, not false light invasion of privacy. See Nazeri 860 S.W.2d at 317 (“Recovery for untrue statements that cause injury to reputation should be in defamation.”). Moreover, the allegedly false statements at issue in Sullivan and Nazeri are similar to the statements at issue here in that they could lead people to believe that the respective plaintiffs had serious professional and personal faults. Likewise, one would expect harm to reputation and privacy interests in this case to be similar to that in Sullivan and Nazeri.

We conclude that the material features of Cockram’s false light claim are indistinguishable from the features of the claims in Sullivan and Nazeri that were not recognized as false light claims. Because we are bound to follow decisions of the Supreme Court of Missouri that sufficiently address the issue before us, we need not determine whether the Supreme Court of Missouri would recognize a false light claim in a ease such as Meyerkord v. Zipatoni Co., 276 S.W.3d 319 (Mo.Ct.App.2008), a Missouri court of appeals case that Cock-ram relies on, or other hypothetical situations. See Gage v. HSM Elec. Prot. Servs., Inc., 655 F.3d 821, 826-27 (8th Cir.2011) (stating that it was unnecessary to consider cases from the state court of appeals in view of applicable precedent from the state supreme court). Therefore, we agree with the district court that Missouri would not recognize Cockram’s false light claim.

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Cockram’s false light invasion of privacy claim, but we reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of Genesco as to Cockram’s defamation claim and remand for further proceedings.

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

Dave Thomas appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of United Steelworkers Local 1938 (Local 1938); United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW);2 and Jon Malek on Thomas’s state-law defamation claim -arising out of a fact-finding meeting concerning a workplace dispute. For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand.

I.

A.

Thomas is an employee of United States Steel (USS), a steel company that operates and owns several iron ore mines. Thomas works in the pit3 at USS’s Minntac facility in Mountain Iron, Minnesota and has been a member of USW and Local 1938 since he began his employment in 1973. In 2003, Thomas was assigned team leader duties in the pit and performed these duties until his removal in 2009. As a team leader, Thomas was responsible for assisting the shift managers in working with the crews.

While a team leader, Thomas worked under two area managers — Lou Janezich from 2003 to 2008 and Mike .Sterk from 2008 to 2009. During his time as area manager, Janezich recalls only receiving one complaint about Thomas’s treatment of his crew. Sterk testified that the only complaint he received about Thomas while area manager was in regard to an incident occurring on April 4, 2009 between Thomas and one of his crew drivers, Roy Varani. On that day, Thomas scolded Varani for not following the company’s safety procedure. Specifically, Thomas and Varani began yelling- at each other and Thomas eventually told Varani, “No wonder the crew said you were a dumb f — ing truck driver.”

Varani reported the incident as harassment, and a fact-finding meeting was called by Sterk on April 6, 2009, to determine what happened. The meeting was attended by Sterk, crew member Dan Six-berry, USS Labor Relations department representatives Nicholas Simonson and Katrina Dononvan, vice president of Local 1938 Jon Malek, USS employee and Local 1938 grievance representative Jake Schmelzer, and USS assistant area manager Jason Croteau. Varani, Sixberry, and Thomas met with the team of representatives separately.

During the meeting, Varani stated that he and Thomas had apologized and that he did not believe Thomas had harassed him on the day of the incident. Thomas related what happened between him and Varani and indicated that it was an isolated incident. Malek then replied that he had received “20 complaints on Dave Thomas.” Malek also said “[Thomas] has been verbally abusive to others for the past five years,” “[Thomas has] been making threats and throwing his weight around for the past five years,” “[Thomas] and two other team- leaders in the Pit are the biggest complaints I get,” “[Thomas] is an absolute prick,” “I’m tired of [Thomas’s] crap,” and “I’m not going to put up with *1138[Thomas’s] sh-anymore.” Thomas also remembers Malek stating at the meeting that “if I had it my way [Thomas] would be off the property.”

Two days after the meeting, Thomas was removed from his position as team leader. Although Thomas was reassigned to the position in 2010, Sterk received a call from Malek, in which Malek claimed to have received three anonymous phone calls from individuals complaining about Thomas’s reassignment. Malek said that the reassignment would cause problems, and Sterk removed Thomas again. Thomas filed an internal union complaint against Malek in April 2010 claiming unfair representation.

B.

After learning that both unions declined to do any further investigation as to the complaint, Thomas brought this action. In his second amended complaint, Thomas asserted the following claims against the defendants: 4 (1) violation of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 401, et seq.; (2) breach of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a); (3) violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act,5 Minn.Stat. § 181.932, Subd. 1; and (4) state-law claims of defamation, tortious interference with contract, and conspiracy. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all of the claims. In his memorandum in opposition to the motion, Thomas stated “the CBA is not implicated in any of Plaintiffs claims and as such [he is] dismissing all claims except the defamation claim and the breach of the union constitution claim.”6 See Memorandum in Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment 34.

In its order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing the second amended complaint, the district court acknowledged Thomas’s admission that the CBA was not implicated and that he was therefore dismissing all of his claims except the defamation claim and the breach of union constitution claim. The court, accordingly, only discussed the remaining claims at issue. First, the court found that the breach of union constitution claim was not properly before the court as it was not raised in Thomas’s second amended complaint, and the court denied further leave to amend the complaint. Second, the court determined that Malek’s alleged defamatory statements were conditionally privileged because the statements were made in the context of an investigation into whether Thomas should continue to perform lead duties and were based on “reasonable or probable grounds.” The court also found that Thomas failed to overcome the privilege because Thomas presented no evidence showing Malek acted with actual malice. Finally, the court concluded that the defamation claim was without merit because Thomas failed to prove that Malek did not actually receive complaints on Thomas and many of the statements made were not actionable. Thomas now appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his defamation claim.

II.

A.

Although not raised by the parties, a threshold question in this appeal is *1139whether the district court maintained subject matter jurisdiction in this case. We have an obligation to consider sua sponte both our jurisdiction to entertain a case and the jurisdiction of the district court. Robins v. Ritchie, 631 F.3d 919, 924 (8th Cir.2011). Accordingly, we must raise jurisdictional issues “when there is an indication that jurisdiction is lacking, even if the parties concede the issue.” Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 523 (8th Cir.1991). Due to (1) Thomas’s statement in his memorandum in opposition to summary judgment that he was “dismissing all claims except the defamation claim and the breach of the union constitution claim,” (2) the district court’s denial of leave to amend the second amended compliant to add the federal breach of union constitution claim,7 and (3) the inapplicability of diversity jurisdiction, we asked the parties to brief whether the district court properly exercised federal subject matter jurisdiction over the state-law defamation claim. After thorough review, we conclude that despite Thomas’s statement of dismissal, the district court maintained its subject matter jurisdiction and properly exercised its supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’s state-law claim.

In response to our jurisdictional inquiry, Thomas claims that his statement in his memorandum in opposition to the appellants’ motion for summary judgment — that he was “dismissing all claims except the defamation claim and the breach of union constitution claim” — removed all the federal claims on which the court based its subject matter jurisdiction. To support his position, Thomas cites cases holding that when a plaintiff amends his complaint and omits the federal claim that originally gave rise to the federal court’s federal question jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 473-74, 127 S.Ct. 1397, 167 L.Ed.2d 190 (2007) (“[Wjhen a plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and then voluntarily amends -the complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction.”); see also Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243-44 (11th Cir.2007) (concluding that plaintiffs failure to include in his amended complaint federal claims initially asserted in his original complaint destroyed the district court’s jurisdiction, and the district court should have dismissed the state claims without prejudice); Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F.2d 504, 508 (5th Cir.1985). We find these cases inapplicable to the circumstances before us because the plaintiff in each of these cases filed an amended complaint that omitted the federal causes of action initially asserted. This did not happen here, and this distinction is critical.

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a federal question must exist on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint in order to establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). When a plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original complaint is superseded and has no legal effect. In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir.2000). As such, we “resolve questions of subject matter jurisdiction by examining the face of the amended complaint.” Id. Here, Thomas was given leave *1140from the court to file two amended complaints; however, each complaint, and more importantly the second amended complaint, reasserted his federal causes of actions — violation of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act and breach of duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act. No further amended complaints were filed, and we are not persuaded that an attempt to dismiss federal claims in a memorandum in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is the equivalent of filing an amended complaint because such act does not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

Rule 15 governs when and how a plaintiff may amend his complaint. Prior to trial, a plaintiff may do so as a matter of course within 21 days of serving the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(A). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) (emphasis added). Leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2), but the plaintiff must follow proper procedures. See In re 2007 Novastar Fin. Inc., Sec. Litig., 579 F.3d 878, 884 (8th Cir. 2009). Although we have not specifically addressed whether a plaintiff may amend his complaint through a memorandum or brief, we find the opinions of other circuit courts addressing this issue instructive and persuasive. See, e.g., Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps. Council 79 v. Scott, 717 F.3d 851, 863 (11th Cir.2013) (“A plaintiff may not amend her complaint through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment or one advocating summary judgment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 184 (4th Cir.2013) (“It is well-established that parties cannot amend their complaints through briefing or oral advocacy.”); Anderson v. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989, 997 (7th Cir.2012) (“[A] plaintiff may not amend his complaint through arguments in his brief in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We conclude that Thomas could not unilaterally dismiss or withdraw his federal claims in a memorandum in opposition to a motion for summary judgment so as to strip the court of its jurisdiction. After 21 days had passed from the filing of his second amended complaint, Thomas was required to either obtain the consent of the opposing parties or seek the permission of the district court if he wanted to amend his complaint to remove certain claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). We therefore hold that because Thomas failed to follow Rule 15’s procedures and nothing in the district court’s order or the record suggests that leave to amend the complaint was granted, the federal claims were not withdrawn from the second amended complaint and remained before the district court until those claims were dismissed by the court in its order. See Thomas v. United Steelworkers Local 1938, Civil No. 11-839 (DWF/LIB), 2012 WL 4758360, at *8 (D.Minn. Oct. 5, 2012) (“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: ... Thomas’s Second Amended Complaint ... is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”).8

*1141We construe Thomas’s purported dismissal 9 as a declaration that he was abandoning all claims except the defamation and breach of union constitution claims and would present no further evidence or argument supporting those abandoned claims. See Satcher v. Univ. of Ark. at Pine Bluff Bd. of Trs., 558 F.3d 731, 735 (8th Cir.2009) (“[FJailure to oppose a basis for summary judgment constitutes waiver of that argument.”); see also Allen v. Missouri, No. 4:11-CV-2224-JAR, 2013 WL 2156259, at *12' (E.D.Mo. May 17, 2013) (construing plaintiff’s failure to respond to the defendant’s motion regarding some of the claims as plaintiffs abandonment of those claims); United States v. NHC Health Care Carp., 163 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1058-59 (W.D.Mo.2001) (finding that the plaintiff abandoned certain claims by failing to address those claims in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment). Therefore, the claims were merely abandoned for purposes of argument, not removed from the second amended complaint.

B.

Having determined that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, we further conclude that the district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’s state-law defamation claim. “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, in any civil action in which the district courts have original jurisdiction, they shall also have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims so related to the claims in the original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” Gregoire v. Class, 236 F.3d 413, 419 (8th Cir.2000). If the district court dismisses every claim over which it had original jurisdiction, the court maintains its broad discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims. Quinn v. Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB, 470 F.3d 1240, 1249 (8th Cir.2006) (“It is within the district court’s discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of the federal claim.” (citing Kan. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Reimer & Roger Assocs., Inc., 11 F.3d 1063, 1068 (8th Cir.1996))). Given the substantial amount of time and judicial resources expended in this case and the well-settled principles of state law concerning defamation, we find no error in the district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’s defamation claim, dismissing the claim on the merits. See Quinn, 470 F.3d at 1249; Condor Corp. v. City of St. Paul, 912 F.2d 215, 221 (8th Cir.1990).

We conclude that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear Thomas’s case and properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’s defamation claim. We now proceed to the merits of Thomas’s defamation claim, the sole issue appealed.

III.

Thomas argues that, for summary judgment purposes, he presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the elements of defamation. Specifically, Thomas contends that Malek’s statements were defamatory and that evidence exists creating a genuine issue of material fact as to the truth of Malek’s statements. Thomas also maintains that the statements made by Malek during the fact-finding meeting were not protected under a qualified privilege, and, even if protected, the privilege was nullified because Malek acted with actual malice. We address each argument in turn *1142and review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., 720 F.3d 721, 725 (8th Cir.2013). Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, summary judgment is appropriate “ ‘[wjhere there is no dispute of material fact and reasonable fact finders could not find in favor of the nonmoving party.’ ” Quinn v. St. Louis Cnty., 653 F.3d 745, 750 (8th Cir.2011) (quoting Fercello v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 612 F.3d 1069, 1077 (8th Cir.2010)). Because we conclude that genuine disputes of material fact exist, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Thomas’s defamation claim and remand.

“Defamation under Minnesota law requires proof that the alleged defamatory statement (1) was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, (2) was false, and (3) tended to harm the plaintiffs reputation and lower [the plaintiff] in the estimation of the community.” Chambers v. Travelers Cos., 668 F.3d 559, 564 (8th Cir.2012) (citing Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp., 766 N.W.2d 910, 919-20 (Minn. 2009)). “If the defamation ‘affect[s] the plaintiff in his business, trade, profession, office or calling,’ it is defamation per se....” Bahr, 766 N.W.2d at 920 (alteration in original) (quoting Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co., 297 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Minn.1980)). “ ‘Defamatory per se’ means that damages are presumed and thus recoverable without proof of actual harm to reputation.” Schlieman v. Gannett Minn. Broad., Inc., 637 N.W.2d 297, 307 (Minn.Ct.App.2001) (citing Becker v. Alloy Hard-facing & Eng’g Co., 401 N.W.2d 655, 661 (Minn.1987)). - Because the statements were made before company and union representatives and concerned Thomas’s activities in his profession, we hold that the first and third elements, third party communication and harm to reputation respectively, are satisfied.

To satisfy the falsity element of a defamation claim under Minnesota law, “a plaintiff must make an initial demonstration that there is a material dispute as to the truth or falsity of the statements at issue,” Weinberger v. Maplewood Review, 668 N.W.2d 667, 680 (Minn.2003), and “ ‘[o]nly statements that present or imply the existence of fact that can be proven true or false are actionable.’ ” Gacek v. Owens & Minor Distrib., Inc., 666 F.3d 1142, 1147 (8th Cir.2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Schlieman, 637 N.W.2d at 308). For instance, “[i]f it is plain that the speaker is expressing a ‘subjective view, an interpretation, a theory, conjecture, or surmise,’ rather than claiming to be in possession of ‘objectively verifiable facts,’ the statement is not actionable.” Id. (quoting Schlieman, 637 N.W.2d at 308). Whether a statement is an opinion or fact is a matter of law, Lund v. Chi. & Nw. Transp. Co., 467 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Minn.Ct.App.1991), but “the truth or falsity of a statement is inherently within the province of a jury.” Keuchle v. Life’s Companion P.C.A., Inc., 653 N.W.2d 214, 218 (Minn.Ct.App.2002). “ ‘[T]rue statements, however disparaging, are not actionable.’ ” McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 725, 730 (Minn.2013) (quoting Stuempges, 297 N.W.2d at 255).

We agree with the district court that Malek’s statements that “Thomas is a prick,” “he is tired of [Thomas’s] crap,” and he “is not going, to put up with his sh — anymore” are all statements of Ma-lek’s subjective view or opinion and, by themselves, are not actionable as a matter of law. See McKee, 825 N.W.2d at 733; see also Lund, 467 N.W.2d at 369 (holding that statements at issue were protected expressions of opinion because they lacked specificity and precision, and the factual implications concerning such statements were unclear). We do not, however, agree *1143with the district court’s conclusion as it relates to the remaining statements.

Malek’s statements that he had received “20 complaints on Dave Thomas,” “[Thomas] has been verbally abusive to others for the past five years,” and “[Thomas has] been making threats and throwing his weight around for the past five years,” are all statements asserting that Thomas had been harassing his crew for at least five years. It is of no consequence that Malek’s statements included adjectives and characteristics rather than specific acts. See Harman v. Heartland Food Co., 614 N.W.2d 286, 241 (Minn.Ct.App.2000) (“Epithets or adjectives can constitute defamation if they imply a specific type of reprehensible conduct.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Furthermore, these statements are capable of being proven false. During Malek’s deposition, Malek could only recall seven complaints he had received about Thomas, none of which involved Thomas making any threats to his crew. Moreover, only one of the seven recalled complaints referenced Thomas’s alleged use of abusive language,10 yet Malek suggested at the fact-finding meeting that Thomas had been verbally abusive for the last five years. The majority of the complaints recalled involved issues with Thomas’s overtime assignment rather than issues of harassment. This information casts serious doubt as to the truth of Malek’s statements altogether. Although we are aware that Minnesota courts have held “[m]inor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as the substance, the gist, the sting,” of the defaming statement can be justified, McKee, 825 N.W.2d at 730 (internal quotation marks omitted), the inaccuracies here are substantial enough to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to their truth. We cannot say that Malek’s statements were essentially true in substance. Thus, Thomas has shown that genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding, the element of falsity and this is enough to make these statements actionable.

The remaining issue is whether Malek’s defamatory statements were subject to a qualified privilege. Thomas argues that no privilege existed for Malek’s statements because -the statements were not made in keeping with the purpose of the meeting, and Malek did not have reasonable or probable grounds for making such statements. We agree.

A defendant’s statements may be entitled to a qualified privilege if the defendant made the alleged defamatory statements “in good faith and ... upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and ... based upon reasonable or probable cause.” Bol v. Cole, 561 N.W.2d 143, 149 (Minn.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, “[statements made in the course of investigating or punishing employee misconduct are generally privileged.” Sherman v. Rinchem Co., 687 F.3d 996,1008 (8th Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). This privilege equally applies to the communications of the 'employer’s agents. See McBride v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,. 306 Minn. 93, 235 N.W.2d 371, 374 (1975). However, here, we conclude that the narrow investigation of one incident between Varani and Thomas was not the proper occasion for Malek to make statements about Thomas’s alleged previous behavior. Thomas presented overwhelming evidence supporting the fact that the sole purpose of the fact-finding meeting was to determine whether Varani had been harassed by Thomas, not, as the district court erroneously concluded, *1144to consider whether Thomas should remain team leader or to consider union complaints made against Thomas. In fact, Sterk testified that he called the meeting solely to determine the facts Of the alleged harassment on April 4th and that Malek’s statements were outside that purpose.

Even assuming that the meeting was the proper occasion to bring up other incidents relating to Thomas’s work behavior, Malek’s failure to investigate any of the complaints prior to making his statements prevents such statements from being based upon reasonable or probable cause. The speaker asserting a privilege “must also have reasonable or probable grounds for believing in the validity of the statement.” Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 461 N.W.2d 374, 380 (Minn.1990). “[A]n employer who takes no steps to investigate but relies entirely on accusations either made by employees who may be biased or on second-hand hearsay with no identification of sources, has not acted as a reasonably prudent person and lacks probable or reasonable grounds for making a potentially defamatory statement.” Id. at 380-81. In the present case, Malek did not have any records of the complaints, all of the complaints were anonymous, and Malek did not investigate any of the complaints to see if they could be substantiated. Notably, Malek admitted in his deposition that he could not do anything about the complaints because under company policy, complaints are deemed not credible when anonymously made. Thus, Malek had no reason to believe in the truth of the complaints and, therefore, was not privileged to make any statements relating thereto.11

IV.

Because Thomas has satisfied all elements of his defamation claim for summary judgment purposes and Malek’s statements were not privileged, the district court’s grant of summary judgment was improper. We therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff, Joseph F. Falls, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granting summary judgment to defendants, Richard Waters, Tom Barnidge, and The Sporting News Publishing Company. In his complaint, plaintiff characterized this diversity action as one “to enforce civil and common law rights arising out of Plaintiff’s employment relationship with Defendant, pursuant to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L.A. § 37.2101 et seq., and the Michigan common law.” The three counts of the complaint were predicated upon age discrimination, defamation, and injurious falsehood.

Plaintiff was fifty-seven years old when his complaint was filed, and had been a sports writer for over thirty-five years. He was sports editor of the Detroit News, and also contributed a weekly column to the The Sporting News (TSN), a weekly newspaper, from 1963 until June 1985, when defendant Tom Barnidge, TSN’s editor, discharged him. He received $90 per column from TSN.

The parties disagree on the proper characterization of plaintiff’s relationship with TSN. While he refers to himself as a part-time employee, TSN maintains that he was an independent contractor contributing part-time piece work or free lance writing assignments. It is undisputed, though, that plaintiff’s compensation iron TSN was reported on IRS Form 1099, and not on a W-2 Form, as was the case for compensation paid to TSN’s “employees”; that there was no formal contract of employment between plaintiff and TSN; that TSN provided plaintiff with no formal office space or equipment except for a telephone credit card with which he was to charge his phone calls to TSN; that plaintiff has been identified by the public as a TSN writer and received fan mail addressed to him at TSN; that he was not reimbursed for travel or other business expenses by TSN and did not receive traditional “employee benefits” from TSN; that his columns were submitted pursuant to deadlines set by TSN, which edited them before publication; that plaintiff was required to produce original columns for TSN and was told to cover specific sporting events; and that TSN provided him with sports research materials.

Plaintiff alleged that two other columnists over the age of fifty-five were also discharged and replaced by younger writers, and that he had been defamed by a letter written by Barnidge in response to a reader’s inquiry, and by an interview given by TSN’s president, defendant Richard Waters, to USA Today, a nationally distributed newspaper.

*613On January 31, 1986, plaintiff filed this action. Rather than answer the complaint, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and, before full discovery was completed, the district court granted summary judgment on May 22, 1986.

Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in these regards: (1) by granting summary judgment before discovery had been completed; (2) in holding that an independent contractor is not protected under the Michigan civil rights act; (3) by improperly applying the common law master-servant analysis in determining that plaintiff was not an “employee” protected from age discrimination under the act; (4) in determining that statements made about plaintiff did not ground a cause of action for defamation; and (5) by holding that a cause of action was not pleaded for the tort of injurious falsehood. Because we agree with plaintiffs positions on some of these issues, we reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings.

Plaintiff’s claim of age discrimination was brought pursuant to the Elliott— Larsen Civil Rights Act, § 202(1), Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202, which states, in pertinent part:

An employer shall not:

(a) Fail or refuse to hire, or recruit, or discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment, because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status.

In contending that the district court erred in concluding that his working relationship with TSN was not protected by the Michigan act, plaintiff first maintains that he was not required to prove that he was an employee of TSN since, even if he were an independent contractor, he would be protected so long as his compensation was impacted by TSN because of his age. Although there are no reported cases from Michigan courts specifically addressing the point, plaintiff notes that the terms “individual” and “compensation” are not defined in the act, and argues that they therefore should be construed according to their common usage. He also maintains that, in Michigan, social legislation is liberally construed to ensure sweeping coverage. TSN responds that, because of the similarity of the language and the intended purposes of both the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), federal decisions construing these statutes are persuasive authority in deciding similar issues under the Michigan act. See Langlois v. McDonald’s Restaurants, Inc., 149 Mich.App. 309, 312, 385 N.W.2d 778, 780 (1986). TSN reasons that independent contractors are not protected under the Michigan act because they do not fall within the ambit of the ADEA or Title VII.

Although this court has rejected a narrow construction of the term “employee” under both Title VII and the ADEA, it has nevertheless adhered to a standard that would exclude from the protection of either act a person who cannot be considered an employee, but is instead clearly an independent contractor. See Armbruster v. Quinn, 711 F.2d 1332, 1341-42 (6th Cir. 1983) (Title VII); EEOC v. First Catholic Slovak Ladies Ass’n, 694 F.2d 1068, 1070 (6th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 819, 104 S.Ct. 80, 78 L.Ed.2d 90 (1983) (ADEA). Because the Michigan act is so similar to Title VII and the ADEA, and Michigan courts regard federal precedent on questions analogous to those presented under Michigan’s civil rights statutes as highly persuasive [Langlois v. McDonald’s Restaurants, Inc.], we may assume that Michigan courts would follow our precedents and interpret the state act to limit its coverage to employees.

The question then remains whether the district court erred in failing to conclude that plaintiff was an employee of TSM, for purposes of the Michigan act. Plaintiff maintains that the “District Court should have eschewed a simplistic common law distinction between employees and independent contractors, and instead, made a detailed analysis of all the factors involved *614in the working relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants.” Had the court done so, he argues, it would have concluded that plaintiff was an integral part of TSN’s business. On the other hand, TSN presents a number of eases containing employment situations similar to plaintiffs, which TSN uses to support its contention that he was an independent contractor.

Whether or not plaintiff was an employee of TSN, as contemplated by the Michigan act, must be resolved by reference to an “economic reality” test developed by Michigan courts to replace the common law “control” test. See, e.g., Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 421 Mich. 641, 364 N.W.2d 670 (1984); Askew v. Macomber, 398 Mich. 212, 247 N.W.2d 288 (1976). This requires viewing an employment situation as a whole in relation to the statutory scheme contemplated by the Michigan act. Control of the worker’s duties, payment of wages, authority to hire and fire, and responsibility for the maintenance of discipline, are all factors to be considered, but no one factor is controlling. Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 421 Mich, at 647-48, 364 N.W.2d 670. Whether TSN was plaintiff’s employer, then, will depend upon the economic realities of their relationship, and among the relevant factors that will demonstrate an employment relationship are those listed above, as well as whether the duties performed by plaintiff were an integral part of TSN’s business and contributed to the accomplishment of a common goal. Askew v. Macomber, 398 Mich, at 217-18, 247 N.W.2d 288. Other factors to be considered were listed by the Michigan Court of Appeals in McKissic v. Bodine, 42 Mich.App. 203, 208-09, 201 N.W.2d 333, 335-36 (1972). Establishment of an independent contractor relationship would require a convincing accumulation of factors indicating that plaintiff's services were rendered in the course of his pursuit of his separate business enterprise of selling those services. Hyslop v. Klein, 85 Mich.App. 149, 157, 270 N.W.2d 540, 543-44 (1978).

It is not clear from the district court’s opinion what test was applied in evaluating the relationship between the parties. From its citation of authorities relying upon control as the determining factor, it would appear that the common law test played a decisive role in the court’s analysis. In addition, the summary judgment evidence was conflicting on some of the factors relied upon by the court, such as plaintiff’s receiving compensation only for published articles, his not receiving “any benefits” from TSN, and TSN not having exercised any control over plaintiff’s work other than the decision to publish and edit the columns he submitted. Moreover, although plaintiff may not have demonstrated a need for discovery precisely as contemplated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), nevertheless, we are uneasy that summary judgment was rendered so early in the proceedings, while discovery was still pending. When one considers the uncertainty surrounding the method utilized to evaluate the parties’ relationship, the conflict in summary judgment evidence, and the status of discovery, it is apparent that summary judgment was not warranted on plaintiff’s age discrimination count.

Plaintiff’s next issue involves his claim that he was defamed by TSN’s editor, Tom Barnidge, when, in response to a reader’s inquiry, Barnidge wrote: “I know Joe brightened a lot of hearts with his column through the years but we felt it was time to make a change, with more energetic columnists who attend more events and are closer to today’s sports scene.” Plaintiff also maintains that he was defamed by TSN’s president, Richard Waters, when Waters was quoted in the course of an interview appearing in the September 17, 1985 edition of USA Today, as saying that: “Those who seem to have reached maturity and are on the downswing are giving way to some of the up-and-coming young writers who we think deserve a chance.”

Plaintiff contends that the district court erred in deciding that the two statements made by the defendants were not capable of a defamatory meaning as a matter of law and, in any event, were opinions.

The elements of a defamation claim in Michigan are: (1) that the defendant published a false and defamatory statement *615concerning the plaintiff; (2) that the statement was an unprivileged communication to a third person; (3) that the defendant was at least negligent in making the statement; and (4) that the statement caused damage to the plaintiff. Ledl v. Quik Pik Food Stores, Inc., 133 Mich.App. 583, 589, 349 N.W.2d 529, 532 (1984). A defamation claim may be disposed of by summary judgment if the statement in issue is not reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning. Clark v. American Broadcasting Cos., 684 F.2d 1208, 1213 (6th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1040, 103 S.Ct. 1433, 75 L.Ed.2d 792 (1983). However, if the statement could be given either a defamatory or a nondefamatory meaning, summary judgment must be denied and the case submitted to the jury. See Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. CBS News, 485 F.Supp. 893, 902 (W.D.Mich.1980), aff'd, 665 F.2d 110 (6th Cir.1981).

Under Michigan law, a communication is defamatory “if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.” Nuyen v. Slater, 372 Mich. 654, 662, 127 N.W.2d 369, 374 (1964). Also, a statement is defamatory per se if it is injurious to a person in his or her business. Heritage Optical Center, Inc. v. Levine, 137 Mich.App. 793, 797, 359 N.W.2d 210, 212 (1984). Circumstances surrounding statements uttered should also be considered. Ledsinger v. Burmeister, 114 Mich.App. 12, 21-22, 318 N.W.2d 558, 563 (1982). This is necessary because the statement’s context may be used to infer a defamatory meaning into an apparently nondefamatory statement. See, e.g., Schultz v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, 468 F.Supp. 551, 554 (E.D. Mich.1979).

Defendants Barnidge and Waters contend that their statements are absolutely privileged under the first amendment as opinions. They also claim that the statements fall under the common law fair comment privilege.

At common law, an expression of opinion could be defamatory, although certain opinions on matters of public concern could qualify as forms of privileged criticism, protected in the name of “fair comment.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 (1977). According to the Restatement, there are two kinds of expressions of opinion. The simple expression of opinion, or the pure type, occurs when the maker of the comment states the facts on which he bases his opinion of the plaintiff and then expresses a comment as to the plaintiffs conduct, qualifications or character. The statement of facts and the expression of opinion were treated separately at common law, in the sense that either or both could be defamatory. A pure type of opinion may also occur when the maker of the comment does not express the facts on which he bases his opinion, but both parties to the communication know the facts or assume their existence and the comment is clearly based on those assumed facts and does not imply the existence of other facts in order to justify the comment. The privilege of fair comment was said to apply to the pure type of opinion. Id. at 171.

The second kind of opinion, or the mixed type, is one which, while an opinion in form or context, is apparently based on facts regarding the plaintiff or his conduct that have not been stated by the defendant or assumed to exist by the parties to the communication. Here, the expression of the opinion gives rise to the inference that there are undisclosed facts that justify the forming of the opinion expressed by the defendant. Id. at 172. The Supreme Court, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), determined that the common law rule, that an opinion of the pure type may be the basis of an action for defamation, offends the first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. Orr v. Argus-Press Co., 586 F.2d 1108, 1114 (6th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 960, 99 S.Ct. 1502, 59 L.Ed.2d 773 (1979).

However, the mixed type of expression of opinion may still be the basis for an action for defamation, since it implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the . opinion. See Orr v. Argus-Press, 586 F.2d at 1115; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 at 172. It is *616the function of the court to determine whether an expression of opinion is capable of bearing a defamatory meaning because it may reasonably be understood to imply the assertion of undisclosed facts that justify the expressed opinion about the plaintiff or his conduct, and the function of the jury to determine whether that meaning was attributed to it by the recipient of the communication. Id. at 173.

In arriving at its decision, the district court apparently treated the statements as expressions of opinion of the pure type; we find no discussion in the court’s order of dismissal of whether the statements imply the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts.

The Restatement provides two illustrations that point out the distinction between the two types of expressions of opinion:

3. A writes to B about his neighbor C: “I think he must be an alcoholic.” A jury might find that this was not just an expression of opinion but that it implied that A knew undisclosed facts that would justify this opinion.

4. A writes to B about his neighbor C: “He moved in six months ago. He works downtown, and I have seen him during that time only twice, in his backyard around 4:30 seated in a deck chair with a portable radio listening to a news broadcast, and with a drink in his hand. I think he must be an alcoholic.” The statement indicates the facts on which the expression of opinion was based and does not imply others. These facts are not defamatory and A is not liable for defamation.

Id. at 174.

The first illustration is of the mixed type of opinion and the second of the pure type.

In the newspaper article, Waters was quoted as using the phrase “reached maturity and on the downswing,” which, when taken in context, could be construed as referring to plaintiff. Whether or not a person has “reached maturity” may be a statement of fact, and insofar as plaintiff is concerned, it could not be false. It also might be viewed as a derogatory opinion, a mild form of ridicule, but it reasonably could not be regarded as defamatory. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559 (1977). However, the statement that plaintiff was “on the downswing” is capable of bearing a defamatory meaning since a jury could reasonably find that it implied that Waters knew undisclosed facts that would justify such an opinion — for example, that plaintiffs writing and reasoning abilities had deteriorated, or that the quality of his work had declined to the point that others had to rewrite or cover for him. Accordingly, summary judgment was not warranted on that portion of Waters’ statement.

Similarly, Barnidge’s letter can be construed, by negative implication, as an expression of opinion that plaintiff was inferi- or to his replacements because he was less energetic than other columnists, attended fewer events, and was not as close as they to the current sports scene. This comment creates a reasonable inference that it is justified by the existence of undisclosed facts, such as, for example, that plaintiff did not work hard or he was prevented by his physical condition from exerting himself; that he did not frequently attend sports events to obtain first-hand knowledge of the events reported in his sports columns; and that he was out-of-touch with current sports personalities, an outsider who lacked good “sources.” Obviously, these kinds of undisclosed facts could be defamatory. In the alternative, the letter can be viewed as expressing a derogatory opinion of plaintiff — that he was inferior to his replacements — based on Barnidge’s own statement as fact that the new writers were more energetic, attended more events, and were closer to the sports scene. If these stated facts were found to be false and defamatory, Barnidge would be subject to liability for the factual statements but not for the expression of opinion.

Under either characterization, summary judgment was improperly granted on the basis of the contents of the letter.

Plaintiff’s last claim is that the district court erred in dismissing his injurious falsehood claim. The court noted that plaintiff failed to plead that the allegedly false statements resulted in special dam*617ages to him in the form of pecuniary loss, and held that, in any event, the statements in question were not false because they amounted to opinions and that the tort of injurious falsehood is subject to the same first amendment defenses as defamation.

The elements of this tort are set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 623A (1977):

One who publishes a false statement harmful to the interests of another is subject to liability for pecuniary loss resulting to the other if

(a) he intends for publication of the statement to result in harm to interests of the other having a pecuniary value, or either recognizes or should recognize that it is likely to do so, and

(b) he knows that the statement is false or acts in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.

The district court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion on plaintiff’s claim for injurious falsehood for much the same reason as it dismissed the defamation claim — that the statements that plaintiff found objectionable were not false, as they amounted to opinions. In view of our disposition of plaintiffs defamation claim, it follows that the district court erred in relying upon that rationale to dispose of the injurious falsehood claim.

Defamation deals with pecuniary loss inflicted by interference with plaintiff’s personal reputation as the result of a published falsehood. By contrast, the tort of injurious falsehood addresses pecuniary loss inflicted by interference with plaintiff’s property by publishing a falsehood. W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 962 (5th ed. 1984). For example, where defendant falsely disparages to a third-party plaintiff's real property title with the result that plaintiff loses a sale to the third party, defendant has interfered with plaintiff’s economic interest in his land by publishing a falsehood.

A false statement that casts aspersion upon both an individual personally and upon that individual’s tangible or intangible property interest may result in damages to either the individual’s reputation or his or her pecuniary interests or both. In such cases ... the torts of injurious falsehood and defamation may overlap. When two torts overlap, the plaintiff may bring suit for both torts as long as damages are not duplicated.

Kollenberg v. Ramirez, 127 Mich.App. 345, 353, 339 N.W.2d 176, 179 (1983) (citation omitted).

Special damages in the form of pecuniary loss must be pleaded and proved. W. Keeton at 967; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 623A comment f. Here, plaintiff would have to show that the facts (whether disclosed or undisclosed) upon which Barnidge based his opinion that plaintiff was inferior to his replacements were false, and that his pecuniary interest was harmed as the result of a third party’s reliance upon them. Under the circumstances of this case, that might be established, for example, by proof that the letter was communicated to another newspaper which refused to run plaintiff's columns as the direct result of Bar-nidge’s disparagement of plaintiff’s work product — e.g., because his columns were not based on first-hand knowledge or good sources. Plaintiff could not prove pecuniary loss, for example, merely by establishing that another newspaper declined to use his columns upon learning that TSN had dropped the columns.

Although plaintiff’s complaint does not allege that defendants’ conduct interfered with a specific relationship between plaintiff and a third party which resulted in pecuniary loss, that was not the basis for the dismissal of the injurious falsehood claim. Accordingly, upon remand, plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to properly plead and prove this tort.

The judgment of the district court is vacated, and this cause is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

G. R. McDonald, J.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from an April 29, 1986, judgment of no cause of action in favor of defendant Taylor AMC/Jeep, Inc., on count v of plaintiff’s complaint entitled "Slander Per Se,” and an April 25 and 29, 1986, judgment for attorney fees and costs in favor of *417defendants American Motors Sales Corporation (amc) and Taylor.

Plaintiff worked for Taylor for approximately twelve years, the last eight years as parts manager. Plaintiff’s employment was terminated in June, 1982, for his alleged involvement with stolen parts.

During his employment as parts manager, one of the employees under plaintiff’s supervision was Laurie Cherup. Around the beginning of 1982, plaintiff had to discipline Cherup and eventually fire her. Rick Howard, the amc branch manager responsible for Taylor amc, reinstated Cherup and told plaintiff to leave her alone. Howard and Cherup were involved in a physical relationship in late 1981 or early 1982. Following plaintiff’s termination, Cherup became the new parts manager. Cherup was overheard on several occasions telling customers over the phone that plaintiff was no longer parts manager because plaintiff had "gotten caught stealing,” and that plaintiff was fired "for being involved in theft of parts.”

Plaintiff testified that he was not involved with stolen parts for profit or personal gain, but was working with Taylor Police Officer James Black in an attempt to set up persons attempting to sell stolen parts to Taylor. On June 15, 1982, plaintiff was contacted on the phone and asked if he wanted to buy a Jeep hardtop. The phone call made plaintiff suspicious that the hardtop was stolen, so plaintiff called Black, a personal friend, for advice. Black advised plaintiff that the police would need "hard evidence” such as names and driver’s license numbers of the suspects. Plaintiff purchased two hardtops which he suspected to be stolen, and placed them in the back of the parts department. When another Taylor employee indicated that a customer was interested in purchas*418ing one of the hardtops, plaintiff responded that they were not for sale as he had reason to believe the hardtops were stolen. Plaintiff was fired the same day Black was allegedly going to write up a report on the stolen goods.

On December 28, 1982, plaintiff filed a complaint against both defendants amc and Taylor alleging in part claims for wrongful discharge, sex discrimination, breach of contract and slander. All counts were dismissed as to defendant amc on March 25, 1986.

On April 29, 1986, a jury verdict of no cause of action in favor of defendant Taylor on plaintiff’s slander and sex discrimination claims was received by the court. The jury also returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff against defendant Taylor on plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim in the amount of $9,610 inclusive of costs and interest. On appeal, plaintiff does not seek review of the verdict of no cause of action entered on the sex discrimination claim and the dismissal on all counts as to defendant amc. The entirety of the appeal questions the propriety of the verdict of no cause of action on the slander claim and the reasonableness and necessity of the attorney fees awarded by the trial court.

Plaintiff first requests a new trial on the slander claim. Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on qualified privilege and actual malice. We agree.

A communication is defamatory if it tends to lower an individual’s reputation in the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. Swenson-Davis v Martel, 135 Mich App 632; 354 NW2d 288 (1984). Slander per se is found where the words spoken are false and malicious and are injurious to a person in his or her profession or employment. Swenson-Davis, supra.

*419Here, the trial court found that Cherup’s statements about plaintiff to defendant’s customers were protected from action by a qualified privilege. The initial determination of whether a privilege exists is one of law for the court. Lawrence v Fox, 357 Mich 134; 97 NW2d 719 (1959). In general, a qualified privilege extends to "all communications made bona fide upon any subject matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, to a person having a corresponding interest or duty . . . .” Swenson-Davis, supra, p 636.

Thus, in order to have a qualified privilege, the communication must be: (1) bona fide; (2) made by a party who has an interest, or a duty to communicate the subject matter; and (3) made to a party who has a corresponding interest or duty.

Although in the instant case neither party addresses the first prerequisite, the "bona fide” nature of the communication, we question whether Cherup’s statements were bona fide. Not only had plaintiff previously fired Cherup, but there was testimony indicating that another employee overheard a conversation between Cherup, Howard and two others regarding possible ways in which to "get rid of’ plaintiff, and wherein Howard allegedly suggested that they "link” plaintiff with some stolen parts.

Nonetheless, even if the statements were bona fide, we find that they do not meet the remaining two requirements. The problem with determining if a qualified privilege applies is that privilege varies with the situation; it is not a constant. Harrison v Arrow Metal Production Corp, 20 Mich App 590; 174 NW2d 875 (1969). Defendant Taylor contends that the particular facts of this situation call for the application of qualified privilege, argu*420ing that it had a duty to inform customers that the parts manager (plaintiff) had been fired for purchasing stolen parts. Taylor asserts that if the customers were not presently told and found out years later that stolen parts were purchased from Taylor, they would cease to do business with the dealership. In Taylor’s opinion, the potential detrimental effect on customer relations justifies the application of qualified privilege to the statements. We disagree.

For defendant’s argument to have merit, and before defendant could acquire an interest in telling customers why plaintiff was fired, a determination should have been made as to whether stolen goods were actually sold to customers. Taylor knew that plaintiff had possession of the Jeep hardtops. There was no reason to believe that any stolen goods ended up in customers’ hands. Therefore, there was no qualified privilege to tell customers that plaintiff was fired because he dealt with stolen parts. Thus, absent evidence that stolen parts had been passed along to customers, plaintiff’s good name should have, been protected by not allowing an employee to tell customers why plaintiff was fired. When dealing with a duty/interest privilege, the Michigan Supreme Court has said "the occasion determines the question of privilege.” Bacon v The Michigan C R Co, 66 Mich 166; 33 NW 181 (1887). The instant occasion did not give the employer a qualified privilege to defame plaintiff.

Furthermore, we find no corresponding interest or duty to hear the communication on the part of the customers. In Merritt v Detroit Memorial Hospital, 81 Mich App 279; 265 NW2d 124 (1978), this Court stated that an employer has a qualified privilege to tell those of its employees responsible for hiring and firing of accusations of employee misconduct. However, an employer cannot tell all *421employees why someone was fired in order to quiet rumors or restore morale. Sias v General Motors Corp, 372 Mich 542; 127 NW2d 357 (1964). In the instant case Taylor does not allege or offer proof that any customer received stolen goods purchased from plaintiff. If Taylor had a good faith belief that stolen auto parts had been sold to a particular customer, the customer may have had an interest, but that is not the situation in the instant case. Here, the customer’s interest is like the employees’ interest in Sias: just a general interest or curiosity in finding out why a former employee was fired.

The trial court erred in instructing the jury that a qualified privilege existed. Absent the existence of a qualified privilege, plaintiff would not have been required to prove actual malice. We cannot say that the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore reverse for a new trial.

We reject plaintiff’s claim that the attorney fees awarded to defendants Taylor and amc were unreasonable. However, because plaintiff is entitled to a new trial on the slander claim against defendant Taylor, the award of attorney fees in favor of Taylor, whether incurred by amc’s attorney on behalf of Taylor or by Taylor’s counsel, must be reversed. The fees were awarded pursuant to the mediation court rule, MCR 2.405, for plaintiff’s failure to sufficiently improve his position. Since it is possible that plaintiff may in fact sufficiently improve his position on retrial, any award of attorney fees as to defendant Taylor is premature. However, the award of fees on behalf of defendant amc, incurred up to the date of dismissal, is affirmed, plaintiff not having appealed the dismissal order as to amc.

Reversed and remanded.