U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2012, 09:46 PM
 
Location: California
4,402 posts, read 11,621,855 times
Reputation: 3129

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koale View Post
not sure which states you are refering to but I would sure like to know. My understanding is that 'No employer' may give detrimental info regarding any past employee to prospective new employers w/out fear of being sued for possible 'malicious intent and wilfull and malicious defamation'. Employers are not protected from such things.
Koale
Doesn't matter what state. Truth is an absolute defense to any slander, defamation, or libel. It really is that simple. If an employer gives a bad reference, and it is true, even if the intent was malicious, truth is a defense. So, there really is no danger in getting sued for "defamation" if you tell a prospective employer the employee was fired for poor performance. Anyone can sue, you are correct, but any employer sued for giving a negative but true reference is going to counter sue the former employee and will recover court costs and attorney's fees as soon as the courts realize they told the truth and the former employee knew what the truth would be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2012, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
553 posts, read 1,047,281 times
Reputation: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koale View Post
not sure which states you are refering to but I would sure like to know. My understanding is that 'No employer' may give detrimental info regarding any past employee to prospective new employers w/out fear of being sued for possible 'malicious intent and wilfull and malicious defamation'. Employers are not protected from such things.
Koale
Do a google search on "employer reference immunity". That will give you some idea about some of the states I am talking about.

In most states, if the immunity statutes did not exist, employers would face frequent exposure for giving negative references. The most common claims would be for defamation (either libel or slander) and tortious interference with a prospective business relationship.

As for defamation claims, even when a state does not provide immunity, employees have a difficult row to hoe in trying to prove defamation. First, an employer's opinion will never be sufficient grounds to maintain a defamation claim. Defamation claims can only be based on false statements of fact. Second, as thebunny suggests, even if an employee asserts that an employ made a defamatory statement of fact about the former employee, if the employer proves the statement to be true, the employee cannot win the defamation claim.

Tortious interference with prospective business relations claims are somewhat easier fr an employee to prove. The claims, however, are not recognized in all states. Generally, the claim will be lost if the employer can show any legitimate reason for having shared the harmful information. Usually, a response to a reference inquiry will be a legitimate reason.

There are also some very good reasons for protecting employers and encouraging the free flow of reference information. But that discussion is for another thread. The short story is: employees should always do their best to avoid burning bridges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2012, 07:42 AM
 
3,721 posts, read 3,923,859 times
Reputation: 3366
Quote:
Originally Posted by raymond2 View Post

Researching applicants should not get so personal to the point of trying to find gossip rather than keeping it strictly on their work performance in past companies. IE the job they were hired to do. The applicant's "personality" is assessed thru the personal interview not by hearsay at ex-companies.
None of the employers I've known would ever ask nor care why someone doesn't "like" someone. Many excellent employees in various fields work more than they socialize while some lazier employees are loved because they're socialites but not really dedicated workers. The boss's "favorite" doesn't mean he/she was the best and hardest worker. Fortunately I've worked mostly for companies who care strictly about work performance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top