The “Privilege” Defense to Defamation Claims

There are four common defenses to defamation claims: privilege, consent, truth and opinion.  This entry will discuss the most widely employed defense to workplace defamation claims – absolute and qualified privileges.

Absolute Privilege. An absolute privilege relieves the defendant or employer of any liability or responsibility for defamatory statements, even if the statements were published with malice.  For example,

•  statements made by an employer in the course of “official proceedings” such as unemployment hearings, wage claims, or discrimination investigations, where the statements are related to such proceedings

•    statements made in an arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement that are not published to persons lacking a legitimate interest in the proceedings

•    statements made during a legally required background inspection of a potential employee

•    statements made during any governmental or quasi-judicial proceedings (which include statements made to the police as part of an investigation into criminal activity)
Qualified Privilege.  A qualified privilege, on the other hand, would relieve the defendant or employer of liability or responsibility if the statement was made without malice.  “Malice” requires showing that the defendant harbored ill will toward the plaintiff or that the defendant lacked reasonable grounds for belief of the statement or publication.  For example, qualified privilege has been found to apply in certain circumstances:

•    Statements made in employee evaluations, performance reviews, or appraisals. Unless the evaluation falsely accuses an employee of criminal conduct, lack of integrity, dishonesty, incompetence or reprehensible personal characteristics or behavior, a bad performance review will not be the basis of a libel suit.  The qualified privilege has been held to apply even when the employer’s evaluation was objectively wrong and could not be “supported by reference to concrete provable facts”

•    Statements made by an employer in employment references.  Section 47(c) of the California Civil Code allows an employer to disclose certain information about a person’s employment to interested parties including a potential new employer.  For example, references and any other information a previous employer communicates, upon a potential employer’s request, that relate to the employee’s “job performance or qualifications” and whether the former employer would rehire the employee

•    Co-Workers. In general, employees may not sue co-workers for defamation based on their conduct relating to “personnel actions” such as terminations, performance evaluations or work assignments

•    Discussions about employee grievances and resolving the grievance

•    Discipline or discharge letters

More information on consent, truth and opinion defenses can be found here.

Read more

Fighting wage theft on your own can be stressful and difficult, which is why it is a good idea to consult an experienced employment lawyer

Bay Area Subway Franchisee Faces Closure and $1 Million Penalty for Wage Theft

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered a 14-unit Subway franchisee in the San Francisco Bay Area to either close or sell their stores. The employers must pay…

READ ARTICLE
Firefighting apparel

Bay Area Fire District Pays $100,000 Settlement for Withdrawing Job Offer Based on Applicant’s Criminal Record

The Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District (MOFD) agreed to pay nearly $97,500 to settle a case brought against it by a job applicant. The settlement, announced by the California Civil Rights Department, stems…

READ ARTICLE
Delivery worker scanning package in warehouse

Deaf FedEx Package Handler Gets $2 Million in Disability Discrimination Case

A former package handler at FedEx Ground who is deaf won a $2 million jury award in a disability discrimination lawsuit. The case highlights the need for employers to proactively address workers’…

READ ARTICLE
Rideshare pickup zone

What the California Supreme Court’s Decision in the Uber Lawsuit Means for Gig Workers

For years, there has been an ongoing struggle between maintaining the convenience and flexibility of the gig economy and protecting the rights of workers who try to make a living within its…

READ ARTICLE
SEEN ON
Fox40-bw
KPIX-bw
SFGate-bw
marin-ij
Abc10-bw