BAD MOUTHED BY BOSSES, WORKERS WIN DEFAMATION CASES

BAD MOUTHED BY BOSSES, WORKERS WIN DEFAMATION CASES

Rick Perezz, previously a general manager at a Ford automotive dealership in San Antonio, Texas, was fired when his boss accused him of stealing cars and cash. Within hours after being fired, rumors spread throughout town that Perez was a criminal.

Mistruths became even more embellished as talk had it that Perez, who had earlier entered into a contract to buy the dealership, was taken from work in handcuffs by police, that he was transporting stolen cars to Mexico and that the FBI was investigating him. In fact, Perez never was arrested and criminal charges were never filed.

Perez sued his former employer for defamation of character and backing-out on the sale of the dealership. Jurors awarded him .5 million for his emotional pain and suffering and economic damages and an additional $ .75 million in punitive damages.

Court records from across the United States indicate that people from all walks of life are successfully suing employers who they contend have defamed their good names. Some examples:

A Michigan security guard was awarded ,300 for having been wrongly accused by a factory manager of misappropriating metal parts. Jurors awarded ,000 for emotional pain and an additional ,000 in punitive damages to a Kansas man who claimed his reputation was tarnished by a press release issued by the company he recently worked for. In a written statement to the news media which omitted his name, the company stated their former general manager inflated revenues and may have also committed fraud. A salesman in Minnesota received a ,000 jury verdict for compensatory damages and another ,000 in punitive damages against his former employer. After a hostile parting of ways, the organization sent a letter to the salesman's new employer stating he took their confidential business records. Although his former employer later found the documents in their offices, the company never retracted the written accusation. Florida law provides workers with recourse against employers who, in certain circumstances, bad-mouth them. Truthful statements about workers, even if stated on a mean-spirited basis, usually shield employers from liability. For example, it's not unlawful for a manager holding a grudge against a salesperson who received customer complaints of rudeness to tell every prospective employer who inquires about the applicant's work history of these gripes.

Employers have a "qualified privilege" to share certain types of information. Normally, managers are permitted to comment about a worker's ability, performance history or attitude to those potential employers seeking job references. In their case rulings, judges frequently write of not wanting to silence those having an "interest or a legal, moral and social duty" from communicating with persons possessing a legitimate need to know to information. That's why the expression of even wrongly held viewpoints on work-related characteristics will typically be shielded from lawsuits.

However, employers can be successfully sued when they abuse these legal protections. When revealing information about job performance to someone other than a potential employer, for example, a supervisor and the company employing him or her could become liable for unkind remarks. For example, it's improper for employers to pass along certain types of truthful information. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act limits what private sector employers may say about details learned when subjecting workers to "lie-detector" tests. State and federal laws also forbid employers from disclosing that those now or previously working for them had lodged complaints of illegal job discrimination.

LORING N. SPOLTER is a Fort Lauderdale attorney who practices in the field of employment law. His law office phone number is (954) 728-3494. Information contained in this article was accurate as of May, 2001. This article is for general information use only and does not substitute for specifically tailored legal advice. For purposes of objectivity, Mr. Spolter articles include information only on cases litigated by lawyers other than himself.