Defamation

Don Hagler worked for Proctor & Gamble Co for 41 years. On his way out of the plant one day, a security guard searched his belongings and found a cell phone. Don stated that he had purchased it himself, it was not company property, and a co worker testified that he was with Don when it was purchased at a local mall. Not only did P & G refuse to believe this, but they posted notices on 11 bulletin boards around the detergent plant claiming It has been determined that the telephone in question is Proctor & Gambles property and that Don had therefore violated Work Rules #12 concerning theft of company property. He was then fired says employment attorney in San Diego. At the jury trial (resulting in a verdict in Dons favor for $15.6 million dollars) Don testified that he had applied for more than 100 jobs and no employer would hire him after learning about the allegations of theft. These simple facts lead to a number of California causes of action (legal basis for a lawsuit). For example, Californias Civil Code prohibits slander of employees, which is defined as anything that tends to lessen the ability of an employee to earn a living. (CC 46(3). Civil Codes 43 and 45 also prohibit defamation. Labor Code 1050 also prohibits an employer from giving any false reference designed to interfere with an employees ability to seek re-employment. Defamation is held to be of such a fundamental wrong as to expose the defendant employer to damages even in the absence of a showing of actual loss of income or other damages. This is called defamation per se. California jury instructions (see CACI 1700, 1702, 1704) advise the jury that no special damages need be proven. Simply put, does the statement at issue tend directly to injury plaintiff in respect to his office, professional, trade or businessby imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires or charge the plaintiff with a crime. Some examples include falsely stating that plaintiff made a $100,000 mistake in estimate a bid. This would tend to injure plaintiff by imputing incompetence. Gould vs. Maryland Sound Industries, 31 CA4th 1137 (1995). Accusing an employee of a crime such as

embezzlement, blackmail or forgery is slander per se. Kelly vs. General Tel. co. 136 CA3d 278 (1982). Opinions are protected from slander lawsuits and only false statements of fact are actionable per California Jury Instruction CACI 1707. First Amendment rights are thus balanced against the rights of employees in California by carefully distinguishing between statements of opinion and fact, treating the one as constitutionally protected and imposing on the other civil liability for its abuse. Gregory vs. McDonnell Douglas, 17 C3d 596 (1976). Simply couching a statement with I think or I believe may not protect the speaker from liability, if a reasonable fact finder could find the statements imply knowledge of provable false facts. As stated in the Restatement of Torts 2d, a statement in the form of an opinion is actionable only if it implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion. Danz & Associates employment attorney in Orange County and Los Angeles have filed literally hundreds of lawsuits where defamation is included in the underlying facts. Religion teaches us that one of the most despicable sins is the casting of false gossip, for the feathers of a pillowscattered to the windmay not easily be gathered back. In this day of Internet communication, think how quickly false statements can be scattered to the winds, make the successful job search impossibility. As always, this column is educational in nature only and legal advice concerning your case can only be given by a knowledgeable attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. We practice throughout California, with offices and attorneys in every major city, including Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, Inland Empire, Fresno, San Francisco, Santa Rosa and Sacramento.