to Caouette’s recollection, each of the complainants had a reasonable basis for believing his or her account to be true. See Kuwik v. Starmark Star Mktg. & Admin., Inc., 156 Ill.2d 16, 188 Ill.Dec. 765, 619 N.E.2d 129, 135 (1993) (reasoning that “misstatement of information should be afforded some degree of protection in order to facilitate the free flow of correct information” where qualified privilege applies). There is also nothing, to suggest that the employees acted in bad faith or out of malice in filing their complaints. Indeed, OfficeMax required its employees to report instances of sexual harassment, and Caouette has not come forward with any evidence so much as suggesting that any of the complainants had an axe to grind with him. See Duchesnaye, 125 N.H. at 253, 480 A.2d 123 (<HOLDING>). Although the New Hampshire Supreme Court has
holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury holding plaintiff bears the burden of proving the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider ftca claim holding defendant bears the burden of proving an accord and satisfaction defense holding that plaintiff bears burden of proving malice to defeat qualified privilege once defendant shows privilege applies holding that employer bears the burden of proving applicability of flsa exemptions