Bad References (employees, percentage, employers, job)

[PG77]

Originally Posted by njsocks

Do you have the article or facts based on what you are saying? I am not trying to be a PITA but I worked for 2 different companies, one being a hospital and another being a casino in Las Vegas and we could NEVER give any more information than dates of employment and position. The employers wouldn't get past me after I told them so. I would then tell them to fax it to my attention and I would fill out the info. I would leave the area where they would ask if they were eligible for rehire. I believe in NY and Nevada it is a state law.

First, let me give you my situation. I was employed with the Federal Government and I left for reasons I won't go into. I moved out of state and applied for a job with an attorney. The attorney hired me but told me that the head person in the department I worked in told him everything about me and the situation why I left, etc., etc. Now this is the Federal Government who you think would know better now, wouldn't you?

Give me a few minutes and let me see if I can find that article I found online.

[PG77]

I am still looking for the article I read the other day, but here is something from Labor Law Talk:

In all 50 states, the employer may release any information that is true, that they honestly believe is true, or that represents their honest and supportable opinion. Despite a horrifyingly widespread and persistant belief there is no law in ANY state that limits the employer to only providing dates. They MAY give the information that you were fired, why you were fired, and the circumstances surrounding it.

That being said, just because they can does not mean they will. Many employers, as a matter of policy, only will supply dates. But they legally may provide considerably more than that.

[PG77]

I cannot find the exact article I read the other day but you can go to this link and see a question that a person asked of an attorney and their responses.

Job reference issues - Employment / Labor - Avvo.com

[tamitrail]

If you google it, there is tons of information out there. Basically, it all says the same thing. It is only an individual company's policy to verify dates and nothing more, not the law. I worked in HR a VERY long time ago and I wasn't even allowed to give out dates. It frustrated the hello out of people when I told them I could only say yes or no and not volunteer any info.

[nebulous1]

Originally Posted by TracySam

NJ socks, your experiences are based on company policies, not the law.
We cannot send you a citation of a law that does not exist. There is no law saying what you can and can't say about a former employee. You have fallen for one of the most popular employment law myths.

Oh, but if he has enough money, he can get an attorney to prove they were badmouthing him.
Oh, and they hired him...and kept him how long?
Why would they have chosen to hire such a bad person in the first place? Looks bad for them...

Facts? We all know there are opinions, and unless they can prove you were stealing, or other and the police were called in to investigate, they just come off looking like a disgruntled employer. They come off angry someone left. Because if they were truly a problem employee, they would hush and let them go elsewhere...
and be someone else's problem. The competition isn't going to be so nice as to warn about a potential problem.

There are unenforcable laws, but if you have enough money, you can sue for just about anything. And anyone who badmouths a former employee takes a huge risk. Someone could hold a grudge, be jealous, try to sabotage someone's career, especially if it were a colleague or one was promoted over the other.

"Warning" another company about an employee is dangerous, because someone could be wrong about that person, and someone could have been out to cause them trouble. It becomes hearsay without evidence, and unless someone has been convicted in a court of law about a crime, or has undeniable evidence, the most an HR recruiter will give out is that the person had worked there and verify dates.

This is the real world.

[nebulous1]

Originally Posted by PG77

I am still looking for the article I read the other day, but here is something from Labor Law Talk:

In all 50 states, the employer may release any information that is true, that they honestly believe is true, or that represents their honest and supportable opinion. Despite a horrifyingly widespread and persistant belief there is no law in ANY state that limits the employer to only providing dates. They MAY give the information that you were fired, why you were fired, and the circumstances surrounding it.

That being said, just because they can does not mean they will. Many employers, as a matter of policy, only will supply dates. But they legally may provide considerably more than that.

They take the risk that your uncle is a big attorney on the East coast who would take the case for you free.
Legally they can say anything they want, but what a jury will decide on is about what is fair.

[TracySam]

Yes, people can sue about anything. But will they win? Most of the time, no.

"Badmouthing" someone would only lead to an award in a lawsuit if slander can be proven. State laws vary a little, but in general to prove slander, the plaintiff would have to prove that what was said (the "badmouthing") is not true, is not merely opinion, and that the plaintiff incurred actual damages from what was said. Pretty hard in reality.

I can say that a former employee was fired because of suspicion of theft. Is that "badmouthing"? Possibly. But it's different from saying I fired the person "because they were stealing" or "because she was a thief." If I have no actual proof of this, then this is, or could be, slander. But to say some was fired because of "the suspicion of ---," then the person can try to sue for slander, but it will be thrown of court.

There is a clear difference between stating fact and stating opinion. It is in the way it is stated. Fact can be proven true or false; opinions, are, well, they just are.

If I say "I fired nebulous because I caught her harming a patient" then I am stating it as a fact. It is then up to me to prove whether this is a true fact or a lie. If I say "I fired nebulous because in my opinion she was not reliable" or "In my opinon she was a poor performer" or "In my opinion she was negligent in her work," then this is stated as an opinion, not as a fact. She could sue me for slander, but if it got to court, the jury would be instructed that they must find that my statements must meet all the criteria of slander for it to be slander. And my statements could not constitute slander if stated as opinions.

Hiring a person who ends up committing misconduct, might "look bad," but we all hire people who present well in interviews and have clean criminal histories, but we sometimes still end up with bad people. That's the world.

And, people can be fired based on a suspicion of misconduct. It does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt like in a court of law. No proof has to be produced at all for it to be a legal termination. The person may win unemployment, but they will not win a wrongful term suit, or a slander suit.

In some fields, like in some areas of healthcare, and in certain states, former employers not only can, but have to inform future prospective employers about some misconduct. For instance, in NJ the "Cullin" legislation requires us to report any healthcare professional who has likely abused or harmed a patient, even if criminal charges were not filed.

Some industries and companies care more about "competition" that justice, but many will decide to report serious suspicions of wrongdoing of former employees to prospective employers, because it is more important to do the right thing that to have the "competition" get a bad employee. And in the real world, companies don't want to go through the effort it would take to deliberately "sabotage" a former employee. No former employee is that important.

[nebulous1]

She could sue me for slander, but if it got to court, the jury would be instructed that they must find that my statements must meet all the criteria of slander for it to be slander. And my statements could not constitute slander if stated as opinions.




The burden of proof rests upon the one making the claim. No jury is just going to believe you without any proof. You can say anything you'd like, but promoting yourself to some infallible position won't work in court. So before you would slander someone, you have to have proof. There are too many malicious people out there, don't you think?

[texdav]

Originally Posted by njsocks

Do you have the article or facts based on what you are saying? I am not trying to be a PITA but I worked for 2 different companies, one being a hospital and another being a casino in Las Vegas and we could NEVER give any more information than dates of employment and position. The employers wouldn't get past me after I told them so. I would then tell them to fax it to my attention and I would fill out the info. I would leave the area where they would ask if they were eligible for rehire. I believe in NY and Nevada it is a state law.

Some companies will not comment which is their right.. Others will give the information written on evaluations which are usually filled out preiodically by a supervisor you work for. But tehn it is the networking evaluation by other you have worked with that is most valuable to you.

[TracySam]

"The burden of proof rests upon the one making the claim. No jury is just going to believe you without any proof. You can say anything you'd like, but promoting yourself to some infallible position won't work in court. So before you would slander someone, you have to have proof. There are too many malicious people out there, don't you think?"


Um no, the burden would be on the plaintiff in a slander suit. The plaintiff would have to prove that I as the former employer intentionally said something factually untrue about her, AND that she suffered damages from it. A jury wouldn't have to be asked to evaluate my "proof" if all I did was state opinions.


"So before you would slander someone, you have to have proof."
This makes absolutely no sense at all.