Whistleblow While You Work

June 2016 – In an article published in Advocate: Journal of Consumer Attorneys Associations for Southern California, partner Iris Weinmann examines the state and federal whistleblower laws that protect employees from retaliation.

 Continue to Article

Recently Expanded Relief from Retaliation for Whistleblower Activity

March 2016 – In an article published in Los Angeles Lawyer, partner Iris Weinmann explains the recently expanded relief from retaliation for whistleblower activity.

See Full Article: Recently Expanded Relief from Retaliation for Whistleblower Activity

The Boys Are Back in Town!

CELA, the 1200 member strong statewide organization of lawyers dedicated to enforcing employee rights, had its annual convention in Oakland last week.

There was a special first day session on Thursday dedicated only to defamation, which was attended by an overflow crowd. Paul Greenberg was one of the three presenters along with “The Don of Defamation” Chris Whelan and outgoing CELA chair Bernard Alexander.

One of the many highlights of the defamation program was the power point presentation given by Paul Greenberg and co-authored by Jane Tanimura of Greenberg & Weinmann, the editor of the California Employees Defamation Blog.

 Pictured from left to right: Chris Whelan, Paul Greenberg, Bernard Alexander

An Alternative to Defamation: False Light Invasion of Privacy

A close ally to defamation is a claim for false light invasion of privacy. While both claims are designed to protect people from offensive facts stated about them, the difference is that defamation concerns statements of fact that are actually false, whereas false light is about false implications of fact. In other words, false light is more about the impression created by the publication rather than its veracity. False light may be more appropriate than a claim for defamation in cases where there is no direct false statement, but there is at least a publication of information that leaves a false impression that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Continue reading: An Alternative to Defamation: False Light Invasion of Privacy

Defamation Liability Related to Workplace Investigations

Frequently, workplace events give rise to a workplace investigation.  The investigation may be conducted by an in-house HR person or a professional outside investigator.  Workplace investigations play a central role in determining whether to discipline or terminate an employee and can have legal consequences for both employees and employers.  An action for defamation can potentially result if false statements are made to the employee’s detriment.  Although an employer may argue that statements made in the course of a workplace investigation are protected, that privilege would usually be conditional at best, meaning it would be lost if the publication was motivated by malice.  Deaile v. General Telephone Company of California (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 841, 847.  

Continue reading: Defamation Liability Related to Workplace Investigations

Examples of Defamatory Criticism of Work Performance

In an earlier blog entry, we discussed how the publication of false criticism of poor performance, incompetence, or dishonesty—whether made in the context of a performance review or as the employer’s stated reason for the employee’s termination—is defamation per se. An employer may be liable for such defamatory statements subject to a showing of malice. Here are some examples of what California courts have held to be defamatory criticism of work performance:

Continue reading: Examples of Defamatory Criticism of Work Performance