the statement had to be determined by a jury. In this case, Biber admits that he was dishonest in his dealings with Duplicator Sales. Although the label offends him, it is based on truthful facts and is not actionable. We disagree with the circuit court’s opinion that communications between corporate employees is not a publication for the purpose of establishing a defamation action. We affirm the summary judgment, however, because the words allegedly uttered were absolutely privileged as expressions of opinion based on truthful facts. ALL CONCUR. 2 . Morganfield Nat. Bank v. Damien Elder & Sons, Ky., 836 S.W.2d 893 (1992). 3 . O’Bryan v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., Ky., 413 S.W.2d 891 (1966). 4 . Hunt Enterprises, Inc. v. John Deere Industrial Equipment Co., 18 F.Supp.2d 697 (1997)(<HOLDING>). 5 . Firestone Textile Co., Div. v. Meadows,
holding there were no grounds for challenging in a termination proceeding the alleged failure to comply with the ada in the provision of services because services are not required by the termination statute holding that the numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the persons primarily responsible for plaintiffs termination when coupled with the timing of plaintiffs termination and the conflicting reasons given by defendants agents for the termination might well persuade a jury that defendant fired the plaintiff in retaliation for  the letter sent by her attorney to defendants general counsel holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable holding that oral termination was invalid where cba called for written termination and that termination was effected only when written notice was given to the funds and the union according to the specific date requirements of the cba holding that although the plaintiff was a problem employee and eventually may have been terminated for that reason the immediate cause of his termination was the osha report