California Employees Defamation Blog
Written by Paul Greenberg and edited by Jane Tanimura
Why an Employees Defamation Blog?
In the course of our 25 years representing employees, we have found a great need to protect the reputation and privacy of our clients whose rights were trampled upon in the course of unjust treatment at work. We have noticed that employees often tend to be unaware of their reputational and privacy rights. This is understandable given that the law on defamation and privacy is more complex than other areas of employment law, which in itself is one of the more complex and challenging areas of the law.
Your reputation and privacy are fundamental, and you should know that your employer does not have the right to make false statements about you or unjustifiably snoop into or publicize your personal affairs. We hope this blog will be informative to you and shed light on possible legal rights you might have against your employer and/or an individual who has violated your reputational and privacy rights.
Making and Responding to CCP 998 Offers in Employment Matters
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
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
Defamation Defense: What is the Conditional Privilege?
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?
Defamatory Defense: What is the Absolute 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?
More Articles...
- Defenses to Defamation
- Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, but Words Can Destroy My Reputation
- What Qualifies as Actionable Defamation: Fact vs. Opinion
- What is the Statute of Limitations for Defamation and When Does it Begin to Run?
- My Employer Has Published False Critisism About My Work Performance. Does California Law Allow That?
- What is Defamation and Why Does it Matter in the Employment Context?
About Paul Greenberg and
Greenberg & Weinmann
Paul Greenberg is managing partner of Greenberg & Weinmann, a law firm that is committed to advancing justice in the workplace and protecting employee rights. For over 25 years, (the last 20 with partner Iris Weinmann), he has handled legal claims on behalf of employees, including over 50 defamation cases that have resulted in significant compensatory and punitive damages and Labor Code section 1050 penalties, in both state and federal court. Greenberg & Weinmann has successfully litigated defamation claims to verdict and received favorable appellate court decisions upholding or reinstating employee rights with respect to their defamation claims. Greenberg & Weinmann is based in Santa Monica, California but litigates statewide.
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