Libel by Fellow Employee
- Thread Starter atexun
- Start date
- Status
cbg
Super Moderator
That would depend upon exactly what was said and whether you suffered any damages as a result.
So libel is libel only if you are damaged? How would you know you were damaged in some cases? Suppose those three people each repeated the same comments to three others and so on. Somewhere along the line they tell someone that you may come in contact with at a future date. Say it's a prospective employer and he recalls the comment and passes on hiring you for some unspecified reason. You're damaged and don't even know it.
cbg
Super Moderator
And suppose no one was paying any attention to these messages and everyone was deleting them unread or totally disregarding and disbelieving them, and then you go and try to sue someone and they all think, hmm, he wouldn't be so keen to force this issue if there wasn't some truth to them. You could make the messages creditable when if you'd done nothing they wouldn't have been.
The bottom line is that you can't sue for what might happen.
The bottom line is that you can't sue for what might happen.
Well, actually it depends on where you are. In most jurisdictions you don't need to prove special damages in libel cases, while you have to prove them in slander cases, that is why the distinction is important.
What is more important here is that you really can establish that the statements were defamatory, that there is some kind of fault with the peron who made them, that they were published, and that the person did not have a privilege. The last point might be a tricky one, because in employment settings there often is a privilege.
Of course, if you cannot prove special damages all you might get in the end is what jurists call "nominal damages", which can be a judgment of $ 1. So there always is the question if it is worth starting a big lawsuit.
What is more important here is that you really can establish that the statements were defamatory, that there is some kind of fault with the peron who made them, that they were published, and that the person did not have a privilege. The last point might be a tricky one, because in employment settings there often is a privilege.
Of course, if you cannot prove special damages all you might get in the end is what jurists call "nominal damages", which can be a judgment of $ 1. So there always is the question if it is worth starting a big lawsuit.
cbg:
Then that would lead back to my original statment that libel is not libel unless you are damaged as I certainly understand that suppostion could never be a foundation for a lawsuit. But I fail to see how forcing the issue somehow lends credence to false and defamatory statements.
NYClex:
This took place in Texas.
1) Could you elaborate on how to establish they were defamatory? From what I understand, saying "So-and-so is a lush" is a statement of fact and would be clearly libelous while saying "I heard so-and-so drinks a lot" would not be. My situation falls into the former and has nothing to do with drinking.
2) What would be considered fault? The person making the statements has no real connection to me. Another employee in our department forwarded e-mail that contained statements by me to our department and that person then forwarded them outside of the company along with the deragatory comments. After that there were a few exchanges back and forth between the party that forwarded the messages outside of the company and one of the three persons that had originally been forwarded to.
3) The fact that they were published is certainly established in my opioion. I have the original e-mails forwarded from the company along with the SMTP logs from the internal MS Exchange server and the mail gateway. I then also have the replies back in from the outside party and the logs from both servers, proving they were read, as the outside party commented on them.
4) The person that forwarded the mail outside of the company absolutely had no privilege whatsoever to forward the e-mail. And the person that forwarded to the person that forwarded outside the company had absolutely no privilege either.
Thank you both for commenting!
Then that would lead back to my original statment that libel is not libel unless you are damaged as I certainly understand that suppostion could never be a foundation for a lawsuit. But I fail to see how forcing the issue somehow lends credence to false and defamatory statements.
NYClex:
This took place in Texas.
1) Could you elaborate on how to establish they were defamatory? From what I understand, saying "So-and-so is a lush" is a statement of fact and would be clearly libelous while saying "I heard so-and-so drinks a lot" would not be. My situation falls into the former and has nothing to do with drinking.
2) What would be considered fault? The person making the statements has no real connection to me. Another employee in our department forwarded e-mail that contained statements by me to our department and that person then forwarded them outside of the company along with the deragatory comments. After that there were a few exchanges back and forth between the party that forwarded the messages outside of the company and one of the three persons that had originally been forwarded to.
3) The fact that they were published is certainly established in my opioion. I have the original e-mails forwarded from the company along with the SMTP logs from the internal MS Exchange server and the mail gateway. I then also have the replies back in from the outside party and the logs from both servers, proving they were read, as the outside party commented on them.
4) The person that forwarded the mail outside of the company absolutely had no privilege whatsoever to forward the e-mail. And the person that forwarded to the person that forwarded outside the company had absolutely no privilege either.
Thank you both for commenting!
Well, first of all you would have to show that this was a false statement of fact. So, the statement cannot have been an opinion, and it must have been false. Example:
"I think Jim is a moron." is not a defamatory statement, because it clearly is an opinion.
"Jim stole $ 5000 from his dying grandmother" is a statement of fact. If Jim's grandmother passed away before he was born he could easily prove that it was false, too. Even a statement like: "You know, from what I hear everywhere I think Jim has stolen $ 5000 fromhis dying grandma" can be a false statement of fact, though it appears to be an opinion, if for example this guy made it all up and never "heard" anything.
The statement then must be derogatory, it must be such that the person's reputation in the opinion of a larger segment of the population would be damaged.
Example: If Jim is a member of a hard rock band and you tell the others: "I know that Jim really thinks country music is the best" this might put him down in the eyes of his peers, but probably not in the eyes of a large segment of the population, so it would not be derogatory.
But if you say: I know that Jim sleeps with his teenage daughters who are under 14" this definitely would put him down in the eyes of many people and therefore would be derogatory.
Then, when you have established this, you would want to look for fault. It is easy when you can show that the person made the statement intentionally like: Joe wants to get Jim's girlfriend, so he tells her: Do you know that Jim sleeps with underage kids?" But you don't need intent, it suffices if you can show negligence (unless the defendant is some public figure). Example: Someone told Joe that a co-worker in his department was arrested for underage sex. Jim did not show up for work today. So Joe goes around and tells all that Jim was arrested for underage sex. In reality, Jim was sick at home and it was Mike who was arrested. Joe was negligent because he did not attempt to find out what really happened to Jim and who really was arrested.
So, when you have all these elements, you need publication. Publication means the statement must have reached at least one other person than plaintiff or defendant. Example: Joe tells Jim: I know you sleep with underage girls! This is not defamation, because nobody but Jim heard this. But if Jim is standing in a group when Joe says this and they all hear it, it is publicized.
Once you have established this you look at privilege: A privilege can exist in many situations, for example is an employer privileged in statements if they concern the interest of his company .Example: Supervisor Joe tells supervisor Mike about Jim: I am sure Jim steals spare parts from our shop. Even if it was false, Joe was privileged to say this to Mike, because he acted in the interest of the company unless he clearly abused the privilege, which would be if he knew it was wrong and wanted Jim to be fired because he hates him.
Then you look for real damages. If your co-worker sends an email to his girlfriend saying: "I know that Joe takes some spare parts home from our shop every night", which is false, and she thinks "so what? I don't know Joe, I don't care about Joe" and forgets it, then Joe did probably not suffer much damage. He would only be able to get nominal damages. On the other hand, if his girlfriend actually is the manager of a company where Joe just did apply for a job and Joe doesn't get the job because of this, he might claim damages.
"I think Jim is a moron." is not a defamatory statement, because it clearly is an opinion.
"Jim stole $ 5000 from his dying grandmother" is a statement of fact. If Jim's grandmother passed away before he was born he could easily prove that it was false, too. Even a statement like: "You know, from what I hear everywhere I think Jim has stolen $ 5000 fromhis dying grandma" can be a false statement of fact, though it appears to be an opinion, if for example this guy made it all up and never "heard" anything.
The statement then must be derogatory, it must be such that the person's reputation in the opinion of a larger segment of the population would be damaged.
Example: If Jim is a member of a hard rock band and you tell the others: "I know that Jim really thinks country music is the best" this might put him down in the eyes of his peers, but probably not in the eyes of a large segment of the population, so it would not be derogatory.
But if you say: I know that Jim sleeps with his teenage daughters who are under 14" this definitely would put him down in the eyes of many people and therefore would be derogatory.
Then, when you have established this, you would want to look for fault. It is easy when you can show that the person made the statement intentionally like: Joe wants to get Jim's girlfriend, so he tells her: Do you know that Jim sleeps with underage kids?" But you don't need intent, it suffices if you can show negligence (unless the defendant is some public figure). Example: Someone told Joe that a co-worker in his department was arrested for underage sex. Jim did not show up for work today. So Joe goes around and tells all that Jim was arrested for underage sex. In reality, Jim was sick at home and it was Mike who was arrested. Joe was negligent because he did not attempt to find out what really happened to Jim and who really was arrested.
So, when you have all these elements, you need publication. Publication means the statement must have reached at least one other person than plaintiff or defendant. Example: Joe tells Jim: I know you sleep with underage girls! This is not defamation, because nobody but Jim heard this. But if Jim is standing in a group when Joe says this and they all hear it, it is publicized.
Once you have established this you look at privilege: A privilege can exist in many situations, for example is an employer privileged in statements if they concern the interest of his company .Example: Supervisor Joe tells supervisor Mike about Jim: I am sure Jim steals spare parts from our shop. Even if it was false, Joe was privileged to say this to Mike, because he acted in the interest of the company unless he clearly abused the privilege, which would be if he knew it was wrong and wanted Jim to be fired because he hates him.
Then you look for real damages. If your co-worker sends an email to his girlfriend saying: "I know that Joe takes some spare parts home from our shop every night", which is false, and she thinks "so what? I don't know Joe, I don't care about Joe" and forgets it, then Joe did probably not suffer much damage. He would only be able to get nominal damages. On the other hand, if his girlfriend actually is the manager of a company where Joe just did apply for a job and Joe doesn't get the job because of this, he might claim damages.
- Status
