Re: Suing Administrators
    Posted by: MacQ on 9/13/14
    () Comments

    On 9/13/14, Teacher wrote:
    > # The Claim.
    > #
    > To establish a claim for defamation, a former employee must
    > demonstrate that the former employer published a defamatory
    > statement about the employee. In other words, an employer
    > may be liable for defamation if the employer communicated a
    > statement about the employee to a third person that could be
    > harmful to the employee's reputation. If the employer cannot
    > demonstrate the truth of the statement, the employer may be
    > liable for defamation. Defamation can be oral (slander# or
    > written #libel).
    > 1. Defamatory Statement.
    > 2.
    > To be a defamatory statement, a communication must be
    > capable of defamatory meaning. The communication need not
    > cause actual harm -- it merely must be capable of impugning
    > the employee's good name or reputation. Courts will examine
    > the statement, the context in which it was made, the
    > audience, and the surrounding circumstances.
    > An employer may be liable for "defamation by conduct"
    > if a defamatory statement can be inferred by the employer's
    > conduct. For example, in one case an employer was found
    > liable for defamation by conduct when it forced an innocent
    > employee to resign amidst an investigation for theft, along
    > with the actual thieves. The employer's actions inferred
    > that the employee was a thief when, in fact, he was not.
    > Thus, mere conduct can support a claim for defamation if the
    > surrounding circumstances permit.
    > 3. Publication.
    > To be liable for defamation, an employer must publish the
    > defamatory statement. "Publication" does not require a large
    > audience; a statement made to one person other than the
    > employee-plaintiff is publication. Thus, announcing over the
    > loudspeaker that an employee was fired for stealing is a
    > publication, but so is responding to a request for a
    > The new theory of "compelled self-publication" holds that an
    > employer may be found liable for defamation of a terminated
    > employee without saying a word. If the employee was
    > terminated based upon evidence that was defamatory, and if
    > the employee is required to disclose the reason for the
    > termination to a prospective employer, the former employer
    > caused compelled self-publication. Liability attaches if it
    > would be foreseeable to the employer that the employee would
    > be compelled to provide the information.
    > # Special Defamation Claims.
    > #
    > 1. Defamation by Neglect.
    > 2.
    > In addition to the above, an employer may be held
    > liable for defamatory statements made by others if it adopts
    > them either intentionally or by implication. In most
    > instances, this occurs where some writing containing a
    > defamatory statement appears on the employer's property and
    > the employer does little or nothing to see that it is

    OK, you appear to have stated statutes to us. Now, how does
    this fit your case and your lack of work?

    Next, no matter how incompetent this guy was, did he
    say/write anything that was untrue about you? Remember, if
    what he said was true and factual, it's not defamation and
    you're SOL.

    One big point to keep in mind, that in these kind of cases,
    the only ones who really win are the attorneys.

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  • Suing Administrators, 9/13/14, by Teacher.
  • Re: Suing Administrators, 9/13/14, by MacQ.
  • Re: Suing Administrators, 9/13/14, by teacher.
  • Re: Suing Administrators, 9/14/14, by elsiev.
  • Re: Suing Administrators, 9/14/14, by MacQ.