Can you prevent your employer to say untrue stuff about you to other employers

[fernsa]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
Hello, I believe that my boss has some kind of bias towards me and is basing his opinion about me on no evidence and only a hunch.
I have told him that his perseption is wrong and illbased and he agrees to it that he will not tell what he thinks to future prospective employers.
I've heard of a 'gag order' that is furnished by the court that prevents people from talking about certain situation.
I would like to write him a note telling him that his perception is wrong and based on no evidence; I will site an incident contrary to what he thinks of my ability. I will ask him to sign this note and return to me with a copy for himself. If he has agreed to it verbally, than I dont think he should have no problem signing a paper. Is there a better way of doing this?
Thanks

 

[cbg]

Only about a hundred.

He is legally entitled to talk about his own perceptions whether you think they are accurate or not. A judge is not going to issue a gag order preventing him from giving his honest opinion, even if you do not agree with it. Nor is there any incentive for your boss to sign a piece of paper saying that his perception is wrong.

 

[commentator]

commentator

Is this person who has this wrong perception of you still your employer, or is he your former employer? Else why do you care if he has this perception?

Answer is still no, anyhow.

 

[fernsa]

did not give him the paper

Thank you for the advise. I guess life goes on. Yes I do work for this guy, but that will end this week. I hope there are employers out there that will ask for proof when someone just shoots off the top of their head.

 

[eerelations]

...someone just shoots off the top of their head.

Whew! Talk about mixed metaphors! A funny visual though...

(Sorry, fernsa, I know this has nothing to do with your issue, I'm just giggling so much I can't resist commenting.)

 

[katmo7]

If you are concerned about what your boss might say if you decided to use him as a future reference well - an employer may generally be subject to liability for giving a deliberately inaccurate of misleading job reference, but an increasing number of states have enacted job reference immunity laws that exempt employers from liability when accurate job reference information is given. Did you ever sign a reference related claim waiver? Not that it matters really, but former employers generally feel a bit more comfortable about releasing job performance or other negative but true information to a prospective employer if you do sign a reference related claim waiver.

 

[thelegalexpert]

Most, almost all, states have laws in place about what future employers can ask. These include your ending salary, what dates you were employed and if you are eligible for rehire. Typically, they are not legally allowed to ask questions like what did they think of you, what were your faults, etc.

This does not mean that these questions don't get asked-they do. Its important to know your rights. Research your rights (in your state) so you are informed. Then I suggest writing your former employer and asking them nicely to please adhere to the laws of the state of XX and only answer the legally acceptable questions and then list what those are.

 

[cbg]

Legalexpert is wrong. Not only does NO state limit what an employer can say to dates of hire etc., but most if not all states have instituted hold harmless laws protecting employers from the consequences of true, but negative references.

An employer cannot provide false information and they may not deliberately mislead. But they MAY provide information about an employee's strengths and weaknesses and they MAY provide their opinion. They may or may not have to have a release from the employee and they may or may not have to notify the employee of what information they provided. But anyone who tells you that they cannot give any information about your performance doesn't know what they are talking about. That is nothing but urban myth.

 

[eerelations]

katmo7 and thelegalexpert are both wrong.

Legally, prospective employers can ask any questions they want, to whomever they choose, about anyone. They are legally free to ask candidates' former employers anything at all about the candidates, from the candidates' salary history to their job performance to their taste in music to their sexual habits, and everything in between. While some of their questions may be inappropriate, they are all legal.

Employers are legally allowed to say anything they want about their former (and current) employees, as long as what they say is true, or they have good reason to believe it's true.

 

[leahann79]

eerelations,

Can you please state how you think katmo7 is wrong? Katmo7 is not wrong with what she posted. thelegalexpert however is wrong with the information they posted. Nowhere mentioned in katmo7's post is do they say that prospective employers can't ask any questions they want or are limited to asking only specific questions. In fact katmo7 states directly

an employer may generally be subject to liability for giving a deliberately inaccurate of misleading job reference,

- this is correct not wrong. Emphasis should be placed on the word deliberately.

Employers, more so in the past, than recently have been very leery about references because they could be sued for giving a negative reference about a former employer. The legal risks of responding fully and truthfully to a request with negative information were far too high to justify disclosure beyond certain things like name, job title, and dates of employment. The principal hazard has been the risk of lawsuits by former employers claiming that such disclosures were defamatory and kept them from obtaining subsequent employment. Although employers win a majority of such lawsuits simply by proving the referenced information given was true - the mere threat of litigation has remained a serious deterrent to candor in reference giving, and the result has been deafening silence about the job performance and abilities of former employees. Even the refusal to give full and truthful references has given rise to claims against former employers for the mere fact they refused to provide a reference resulting in the hiring employer drawing a negative conclusion about the employer's former employment record. Employers walk a very fine line usually when providing references.

In response to this legal quagmire, SOME states have enacted laws providing employers with protection or immunity from claims based on references, but not all states.

 

[Just Blue]

eerelations,

Can you please state how you think katmo7 is wrong? Katmo7 is not incorrect with what she posted. thelegalexpert however is wrong with the information they posted. Nowhere in katmo7's post is mentioned that prospective employers can't ask any questions they want or are limited to asking only specific questions. In fact katmo7 states directly - this is correct not wrong. Emphasis should be placed on the word deliberately.

Employers more so in the past than recently have been very leery about references because they could be sued for giving a negative reference about a former employer. The legal risks of responding fully and truthfully to a request with negative information were fart too high to justify disclosure beyond certain things like name, job title, and dates of employment. The principal hazard has been the risk of lawsuits by former employers claiming that such disclosures were defamatory and kept them from obtaining subsequent employment. Although employers win a majority of such lawsuits simply by proving the references information was true - the mere threat of litigation has remained a serious deterrent to candor in reference giving. And the result has been deafening silence about the job performance and abilities of former employees. Even the refusal to give full and truthful references has given claims against former employers for the mere fact they refused to provide a reference resulting in the hiring employer drawing a negative conclusion about the employer's former employment record. Employers walk a very fine line usually when providing references.

In response to this legal quagmire, SOME states have enacted laws providing employers with protection or immunity form claims based on references, but not all states.

Could you please give your qualifications?

 

[Proserpina]

In response to this legal quagmire, SOME states have enacted laws providing employers with protection or immunity form claims based on references, but not all states.

Which states would these be?

 

[SingleMomAZ]

umm I'm pretty sure that past employers can ONLY state what date you were hired, what date you finished, and if they would hire you again. That's ALL!

 

[Just Blue]

umm I'm pretty sure that past employers can ONLY state what date you were hired, what date you finished, and if they would hire you again. That's ALL!

Really? Please post the state or federal law to back up your advice. Or remove your post.

 

[cbg]

And I'm 100% certain that you are wrong. This is an urban myth, widely believed and not true in any state.

Leahann79 (whom I suspect of being Katmo) has presented very nicely the basis for this misconception. However, what she has failed to note is that the legal risk is actually quite low. I am aware of exactly one lawsuit of the sort she mentioned, and in that case there was determined to be distinct malice involved. What's more, the case has not yet been tried; it has only be determined that the case may be tried. No decision has been made.

On the other hand, at a seminar a few years back of several hundred HR professionals (including myself - this is not apocryphal, I was there), the presenter asked if anyone present had ever had a current or past employer sued for this reason. No one had. Then the presenter asked if anyone present had ever HEARD of such a lawsuit. ONE person had - and the case had been settled in the employer's favor.

The fact is that an employer who tells the truth and can support it has little to fear legally, despite what popular legend would have you believe.

And almost all states have hold harmless laws.