Greenberg & Weinmann has aggressively pursued and obtained justice and dignity on behalf of employees since our first trial victory on behalf of a mistreated employee in Los Angeles Superior Court over 25 years ago.
We have achieved numerous six- and seven-figure results on behalf of our clients.
We pledge our loyalty and undivided attention to our clients.
If you are uncertain whether you have a case, please read our FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions). If you'd like to consult with us, please call us at 310-319-6188 or fill out our "Ready to Talk?" form.
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
June 2014 – In an article published in Advocate: Journal of Consumer Attorneys Associations for Southern California, partner Iris Weinmann gives an overview of making and responding to CCP 998 offers.
See Full Article: Making and Responding to CCP 998 Offers and Appeals
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
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
California Civil Code § 47(c) grants a conditional privilege against defamation to communications made without malice and on subjects of common interest. This conditional privilege is often used by employers to argue that they should be protected from liability for statements made about employees to other employees in the employer’s organization. Critical to determining whether the conditional privilege is even applicable is 1) whether the allegedly defamatory communication was made on a matter of common interest and 2) whether the employer acted without malice in making the statement. Only if both of these requirements are met can an employer be immune from liability for his or her statements.
Continue reading: Defamation Defense: What is the Conditional Privilege?
Another defense to defamation is the absolute privilege. California Civil Code § 47(a) and (b) provide a limited set of circumstances in which an employer is relieved of any liability or responsibility for his statements even if they were published with malice. In general, there are five kinds of statements that are absolutely privileged:
Continue reading: Defamatory Defense: What is the Absolute Privilege?
The information contained above is intended for purely informational purposes.
It does not in any way constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.
Use of such material does not, in any way, constitute an attorney-client relationship; only an express signed agreement can create such a relationship.
Practice Areas | Our Attorneys | FAQ | California Employees Defamation Blog | Ready to Talk?
1101 Montana Ave., Suite D, Santa Monica, CA 90403
© 2014 Greenberg & Weinmann - All Rights Reserved
website build | design: webolution9