is wrongful termination considered slander

[help4betterlife]

What is the name of your state? WI
Can it be considered defamation if an employer terminates your employment for what they consider "misconduct", and then an administrative judge finds there was no misconduct involved?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? WI
Can it be considered defamation if an employer terminates your employment for what they consider "misconduct", and then an administrative judge finds there was no misconduct involved?

And where is 'publication' of the events that led to this 'misconduct'?

What specific damages did you suffer due to this 'misconduct'?

Was the administrative judge a UC hearing judge?

What is the price of tea in China?

 

[cbg]

No, what you describe is not considered slander, defamation, or libel.

And though you didn't ask this, there's a pretty damned good chance that it wasn't a wrongful termination either. Despite what many people appear to believe, there is NO correlation between receiving UI and the legality of a termination. The adjudicator finding that you were not guilty of misconduct does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that you were wrongfully terminated under the law. The vast majority of people collecting UI benefits were terminated legally.

 

[grasmicc]

You have one of the necessary elements of slander, which is them saying something about you that wasn't true (and you've got the benefit of a judicial opinion saying it wasn't true).

However, slander requires something more than that. First, it requires some specific and significant damages that you have sufferred. Second, it requires some combination of intent elements that vary by state but usually amount to the slanderer knowing that what they said wasn't true.

Now, if, in the future, these guys tell future employers that you were fired for misconduct, then you'd probably have the ingredients of a slander case: (1) provable damages. (2) a false statement. (3) they knew that the statement was false.

 

[Beth3]

You have one of the necessary elements of slander, which is them saying something about you that wasn't true (and you've got the benefit of a judicial opinion saying it wasn't true).

Not correct. The poster hasn't fully explained but what he has is a UC adjudicator (or possibly an ALJ) rendering an opinion that the reason for which he was terminated does not rise to the level of misconduct as defined in UC statutes and that benefits are allowed. That does not mean that the employee wasn't validly terminated for misconduct or that the employer will have engaged in slander if he provides that information in a reference.

Many, many individuals are terminated for misconduct who are still eligible to receive UC benefits.

 

[grasmicc]

I agree that the issue of whether he was fired for "misconduct" in the colloquial sense has not been resolved and would be open to argument if he were to bring a slander suit.

However, the judicial (quasi-judicial) opinion would certainly meet the "burden of production", necessary to get the question of whether misconduct occurred or not to a jury.

 

[LSchmid]

Actually I have to disagree with the previous post. Having an ALJ determine that the reason(s) an employee was terminated does not rise to the definition of misconduct, especially under WI law, does not have ANY impact or any meaning within whether or not the employee was actually terminated for what the employer determined was misconduct.

FYI - In WI, an employee can be terminated for job abandonment and be awarded UI benefits due to an ALJ's interpretation of "misconduct", which here in WI was defined back in the 1950's.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I agree that the issue of whether he was fired for "misconduct" in the colloquial sense has not been resolved and would be open to argument if he were to bring a slander suit.

However, the judicial (quasi-judicial) opinion would certainly meet the "burden of production", necessary to get the question of whether misconduct occurred or not to a jury.

What the hell are you talking about. Statements made in judicial proceedings are immune from slander/libel.

 

[Beth3]

You are right on the money, LSchmid. Additionally, in Wisconsin, testimony, findings, etc., at a UC hearing are specifically prohibited from being used in any other legal proceeding.