Did warning to workers defame fired employee?
January 23, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Terminations
An employee is fired after stealing from the company. To warn employees about the consequences of that behavior, his manager e-mails the rest of the staff explaining the termination. Is the company guilty of libel?
Read the facts of the real-life case and decide: Who won?
The facts:
During an audit of travel expense reports, the company discovered that one employee had requested a total of $1,622 more than he actually spent and pocketed the difference. The employee admitted that he often filled out expense reports before he traveled, estimating how much money he would spend — which was against company policy. He also acknowledged making other “mistakes” that led to him being overpaid. He was fired.
His manager sent an e-mail to the rest of his staff telling them about the termination. The e-mail stated the employee “was not in compliance with our travel and expenses policies,” and reminded employees that “compliance with company policies is not optional.”
After he found out about the e-mail, the employee sued the company for libel.
The employer said:
Everything the manager said in the e-mail was true. There was no intention to defame the employee’s character, just to remind employees that the company takes its policies seriously.
Who won the case?
Answer: The employer.
Why: The judge ruled that the e-mail wasn’t libel. For an act to be considered libel, the statement must:
- be written down
- concern the person bringing the suit
- be defamatory
- be false, and
- cause an economic loss or other adverse consequences.
The e-mail met all the criteria but one: It wasn’t false. The employee was fired for violating the company’s travel and entertainment policy, a fact that was not disputed.
Therefore, while it may have been in poor taste to use the ex-employee as an example, it wasn’t illegal.
Cite: Noonan v. Staples, Inc.
Tags: defamation, libel, termination
January 29th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I wonder how it met the criterion of causing an economic loss or other adverse consequences.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
THe case reported above was a private company. If it were a public agency, then likely there would be state or federal rules protecting the privacy rights of individuals (e.g. the Privacy Act in the Federal sector). Under these laws, the manager would be guilty of violating privacy requirements even if, as here, there was no libel because the statements were true. (Even bad guys have privacy rights…)
The rellevant info could have been shared with other employees in ways that would not reveal the identity of the employee – sanitize (redact) the names & other identifiers, and/or modify ther factual background so as to hide the identity of the guilty party without losing the point. The extra “oomph” of naming the employee is not worth a Privacy Act violation.
February 4th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Again we have an individual, who is at fault, trying to play the “get last” game with an employer. If you don’t want people finding out about your dishonest and non-ethical character, maybe you should re-consider doing something (stealing) that you know is wrong. (Bad guys should not have an expectation of privacy for criminal acts they have committed)