eted its fact =athering. Our courts recognize that participants in an =dministrative investigation have a privilege against a defamation =harge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 140 =riz. 335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized =hat the employer's response to a notice of charge of =iscrimination filed

Times=New Roman",serif'> Our courts recognize that participants in=an administrative investigation have a privilege against a defamation char=e. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 140 Ariz. 335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Di=. 2 1984), the court recognized that the employer's response to a =otice of charge of discrimination filed

eted its fact =athering. Our courts recognize that participants in an administrative investigation have a =rivilege against a defamation charge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 14= Ariz. 335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized that the employer's response to a notice of charge of =iscrimination filed

_01657604 EFTA02520709 Our courts recognize that participants in an adm=nistrative investigation have a privilege against a defamation charge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 140 Ariz.=335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized that the emp=oyer's response to a notice of charge of discrimination filed

657719 EFTA02520780 * Our courts recog=ize that participants in an administrative investigation have a privilege =gainst a defamation charge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 140 Ariz. 335= 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized that the employ=r's response to a notice of charge of discrimination filed

fact gatherin=. <=span> Our cour=s recognize that participants in an administrative investigation have a pri=ilege against a defamation charge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 1=0 Ariz. 335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized that=the employer's response to a notice of charge of discrimination fil=d

eted its fact =athering. Our courts recognize that participants in an administrative investigation have a =rivilege against a defamation charge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 140 Ariz. 335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized that the employer's response to a notice of charge of =iscrimination filed