Defamation And Tort Law: Can Employees Sue?

Defamation laws vary from state to state, and employees may be able to sue under state tort laws for defamation of character if they can prove that their employer knowingly made a false statement about them, which harmed their reputation and caused them to lose their job or be passed over for a promotion. However, it can be challenging to prove defamation, as the exact legal line between fact and opinion can be blurry and varies by jurisdiction. In addition, truth is a defence against defamation, and statements of opinion are protected under the First Amendment. Furthermore, employees may face challenges in finding legal representation for defamation cases, as lawyers typically require evidence of significant economic harm to take on such cases.

Opinions vs facts

In the context of defamation, opinions are generally protected by the First Amendment and are not considered defamatory. This is because opinions are subjective and often reflect a person's feelings or attitude toward a particular subject. They are not based on facts or evidence and cannot be proven or disproven. However, an opinion can become defamatory if it implies the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts. For example, if someone says, "I think John is a thief," it could be considered defamatory if the listener can reasonably infer that the opinion is based on undisclosed facts.

On the other hand, a false statement of fact about someone can be defamatory. A false statement of fact is a statement that can be proven true or false through evidence. For example, saying, "John Doe has a criminal record" can be proven or disproven through official records. If the statement is false and causes harm to John Doe's reputation, it could be considered defamatory. To bring a successful defamation claim, the defendant must have published a false statement of fact about the plaintiff that caused damage to their reputation.

The exact legal line between fact and opinion can sometimes be unclear and may vary by jurisdiction. In defamation cases, it is common for parties to dispute whether a statement is fact or opinion. Courts will generally look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement and its publication to determine how a reasonable person would view it. The context in which the statement was made is also important, as merely framing a statement as an opinion may not be sufficient to protect it from being considered defamatory.

In the employment context, defamation cases can be challenging for employees. Proving "actual malice" in employment defamation cases can be difficult, and employees may struggle to find a lawyer to take on their case unless they have experienced significant economic harm as a result of the defamation. However, if an employee believes they have been defamed, they should consider seeking legal advice from an experienced employment law attorney, as they may have a valid claim.

Proving defamation

False Statement of Fact

Firstly, it must be proven that a false statement of fact was made about the plaintiff. It is important to distinguish between statements of fact and opinions, as expressing an opinion about someone is generally not considered defamation. Statements of fact can be verified or proven false, while opinions are subjective and open to interpretation.

Publication to a Third Party

It must also be demonstrated that the false statement was communicated or published to a third party. This means that the statement was shared with someone other than the plaintiff, potentially including colleagues, clients, or the public.

Damage or Harm

• Reputational damage can be challenging to prove and may require evidence such as decreased ratings on review sites, negative comments, or reduced engagement with online content.
• Monetary or economic damages refer to quantifiable financial losses directly resulting from the defamatory statements, such as loss of business or employment opportunities.
• Emotional distress can be even more difficult to prove and typically requires expert testimony to establish a link between the defamatory statements and the plaintiff's emotional state.

Actual Malice

In some cases, particularly involving public officials or figures, it may be necessary to prove "actual malice." This means demonstrating that the defendant made the statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

It is worth noting that truth is often a defence against defamation claims. If a statement is true, it is generally not considered defamatory, even if it harms someone's reputation. Additionally, certain privileges may protect individuals from defamation claims, such as statements made during legislative or judicial proceedings.

State-specific laws

In Maine, for instance, all defamation claims require a showing of fault, which demands that the plaintiff prove that the defendant was at least negligent. In New York, a court held that in determining whether a defamation claim is sufficient, a court must consider whether the "contested statements are reasonably susceptible to a defamatory connotation."

In Georgia, workers' compensation law is the exclusive remedy for physical injuries only, meaning a civil claim may be available to an employee who is the victim of character assassination. Damages in such cases may include economic losses, non-economic damages like pain and suffering, and other types of compensation.

Pennsylvania's Sovereign Immunity Act details the circumstances in which one can sue the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, while Florida laws include a Waiver of Sovereign Immunity for certain tort actions.

Additionally, some states consider self-publication, where an employee is compelled to disclose the employer's false statement to a prospective employer, as a basis for defamation.

Tortious interference

To prove tortious interference, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following:

• The existence of a valid contract or economic relationship;
• The defendant's knowledge of this relationship;
• Intentional and improper interference by the defendant; and
• Resulting economic harm to the plaintiff.

It is important to note that the specific elements required to prove a claim of tortious interference may vary depending on the jurisdiction. For example, in the United Kingdom, a trade union encouraging workers to take strike action may commit tortious interference with the employees' contracts unless conducted in accordance with the relevant legislation.

In the context of defamation, tortious interference can occur when an employer makes false statements about an employee, resulting in harm to their personal and professional reputation. This can include written defamatory statements (libel) or spoken defamatory statements (slander). However, it is important to note that proving actual malice in employment defamation cases can be challenging, and employees may struggle to find legal representation unless they can demonstrate significant reputational harm with substantial economic impact.

In some cases, the plaintiff may seek injunctive relief, such as a court order preventing the defendant from continuing to interfere with their business relationships. This is particularly relevant when the interference is ongoing or threatens imminent harm that cannot be adequately remedied through monetary damages alone.

Defamation remedies

Defamation law in the United States is not uniform across the country. Each state has its own legal system, and defamation statutes vary from state to state. However, there are some common remedies for defamation that can be pursued.

Firstly, it is important to note the distinction between libel and slander. Libel refers to written defamatory statements, such as those published in newspapers, books, or magazines. Slander, on the other hand, involves spoken defamatory statements. In a defamation case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false statement of fact about them, causing them harm. Opinions are generally protected under the First Amendment and are not considered defamatory.

One remedy for defamation is a retraction or correction of the defamatory statement by the defendant. This can be ordered by the court, and in some cases, the defendant may be required to publish a summary of the judgment or remove the defamatory statement from a website. Additionally, the defendant can be legally prevented from publishing further similar defamatory statements through an injunction, either interim or final. An interim injunction stays in place until the conclusion of the claim or further order from the court, while a final injunction is given by the court after the claim has been resolved.

Another remedy is seeking damages, which can include compensation for any economic losses or harm to reputation caused by the defamation. However, the amount and availability of damages may vary depending on the state and the specific circumstances of the case. For example, some states may limit awards to actual damages, while others may allow for criminal liability for certain defamatory statements.

It is worth noting that defamation cases can be complex, and the success rate for employees suing their employers for defamation is relatively low. The "actual malice" standard in employment defamation cases can be challenging to prove, and employees may struggle to find legal representation unless they can demonstrate significant reputational harm with economic consequences.

Frequently asked questions