slander at work

[friend73]

What is the name of your state? missouri
At work my boss accused my of stealing money, which did not happen. I never left the building, tried to, or said i was. He also harrased me about it while my co workers were standing thee and discussed it with other employees. Is this slander

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

What is the name of your state? missouri
At work my boss accused my of stealing money, which did not happen. I never left the building, tried to, or said i was. He also harrased me about it while my co workers were standing thee and discussed it with other employees. Is this slander

My response:

Unfounded accusations of criminal activity can be viewed as slanderous.

Now, the bigger question is what are you going to do? Or, even better, what can you afford to do about it?

IAAL

 

[cbg]

Almost certainly not. In order for a slander claim to fly, ALL of the following must be true:

1.) What is stated must be untrue
2.) The speaker must KNOW that it is untrue
3.) It must be said maliciously
4.) It must be made to an audience
5.) You must suffer damages as a result.

If your boss honestly believes that you were involved in the theft, then #2 and #3 are NOT true. Also, it is not clear whether you have suffered any damages or not. Hurt feelings are not damages. It MAY be damages if your co-workers believe you are involved because of what he said AND your ability to do your job is damaged as a result of their believing it.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Almost certainly not. In order for a slander claim to fly, ALL of the following must be true:

1.) What is stated must be untrue
2.) The speaker must KNOW that it is untrue
3.) It must be said maliciously
4.) It must be made to an audience
5.) You must suffer damages as a result.

If your boss honestly believes that you were involved in the theft, then #2 and #3 are NOT true. Also, it is not clear whether you have suffered any damages or not. Hurt feelings are not damages. It MAY be damages if your co-workers believe you are involved because of what he said AND your ability to do your job is damaged as a result of their believing it.

My response:

I beg to differ, cbg. In this employee/employer situation, what our writer has described is called "slander per se."

The following are the essential elements of a claim for defamation:

• False, nonprivileged publication of a statement of fact (rather than opinion) that:

-- in the case of libel (written publication), exposes plaintiff to "hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy . . . or has a tendency to injure him in his occupation";

-- in the case of slander (oral publication), charges plaintiff with a crime, loathsome disease, impotence or want of chastity, or tends directly to injure him in his or her occupation;

• Actual damage to plaintiff's reputation (but damages are presumed if the publication is defamatory "per se"); and

• Causation.

Accusing an employee of conduct that constitutes a crime (e.g., embezzlement, forgery) is slander "per se." [Kelly v. General Tel. Co. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 278, 284, 186 Cal.Rptr. 184, 186; see also Livitsanos v. Sup.Ct. (Continental Culture Specialists) (1992) 2 Cal.4th 744, 748, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 808, 811 - - accusations of embezzlement and "blackmail"]

Several lower courts have held defamation claims are not preempted because the injury is to the employee's reputation, not a mental or physical injury. Damage to one's reputation is not a "normal risk of employment" within the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. [Davaris v. Cubaleski (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1583, 1591, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 335; Howland v. Balma (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 899, 904-905, 192 Cal.Rptr. 286, 289; but see Robomatic, Inc. v. Vetco Offshore (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 270, 275, 275 Cal.Rptr. 70, 73-74]

Now, I realize that I'm quoting California law; however, most States have virtually the same or similar laws on their books. In other words, you can't just go around accusing people of unfounded crimes without some sort of tort liability. It's not merely a matter of suffering actual damages when the accusation is slander per se - - in that instance, placing someone in a "false light" is all that matters in order to sustain a "cause of action" for slander.

IAAL

 

[Beth3]

I suppose actions under that "want of chastity" verbiage gets a lot of workout in CA courts.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I suppose actions under that "want of chastity" verbiage gets a lot of workout in CA courts.

My response:

Very rarely. However, in these rare occurrences, the court orders that a "chastity belt" be worn for up to 6 months. The court also uses "case hardened" padlocks so that they can't be removed or cut off.

They're kind of bulky, so you can usually spot those women walking a bit bow-legged down the street.

IAAL

 

[Beth3]

Hmmm. Kind of glad now that my folks relocated the family from CA when I was still fairly young.

But getting serious for a moment, if the supervisor believed the employee was guilty of stealing money (as opposed to making up the allegation and broadcasting it), I don't see how that amounts to slander (not that I agree with the way the boss handled this.)

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Hmmm. Kind of glad now that my folks relocated the family from CA when I was still fairly young.

But getting serious for a moment, if the supervisor believed the employee was guilty of stealing money (as opposed to making up the allegation and broadcasting it), I don't see how that amounts to slander (not that I agree with the way the boss handled this.)

My response:

In a "slander per se" situation, it has nothing to do with "belief". Accusing someone of a crime with multiple people around to hear the accusation is all that's necessary to sustain the cause of action.

Per se accusations are far different than your average slanderous statement, which would require a greater degree of proof in terms of damages, and the other elements of the tort.

You see, such "per se" accusations (such as a crime) are already in the statute, and the damages are "presumed" to one's reputation just by the mere fact that an accuser has placed the "victim" in a "false light." So, whether or not one "believes" the accusation, or whether the statement proves to be unprovable, the fact remains that the victim has, nonetheless under the statute, suffered damages - - whether "actual" or otherwise.

IAAL

 

[cbg]

Not arguing with you, IAAL, just clarifying.

The issue here is the criminality? If the employee had been accused of violating a company policy in the same circumstances, my advice would stand?

And, like Beth, I'm confused about the employer's right to state his personal opinion in this circumstance.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Not arguing with you, IAAL, just clarifying.

The issue here is the criminality? If the employee had been accused of violating a company policy in the same circumstances, my advice would stand?

And, like Beth, I'm confused about the employer's right to state his personal opinion in this circumstance.

My response:

Sweetheart, you can argue with me anytime. You've earned that right. With your knowledge, it's usually extremely difficult to find fault or inaccuracies with any of your responses on these forums.

Okay, the issue here IS criminal accusation - - whether in the employment context or not. It also has nothing to do with a "company policy". An accusation of criminal conduct is an accusation of criminal conduct no matter what, when, who or whatever. If it's false, it's false.

The only difference is that "slander per se" has a greater degree of protection afforded to the victim. Therefore, the accuser had better be "right on target" with the accusation because if the accuser is wrong, then all hell can break loose. The victim has a much lower degree of proof necessary to sustain such a cause of action because the statute "presumes" there has been damage to one's reputation. Therefore, a victim doesn't need to "prove" all of the standard forms of damages. Damages are automatic in a "per se" situation.

IAAL

 

[cbg]

"Sweetheart, you can argue with me anytime. You've earned that right. With your knowledge, it's usually extremely difficult to find fault or inaccuracies with any of your responses on these forums."

Thank you - that's good to hear! I appreciate that.

Just to clarify what I meant by company policy - if the act that the boss accused the poster of was NOT a criminal act, but instead was for violating the company smoking policy, or the company internet policy, or any policy that was non-criminal but still could result in the employee's termination, then it would NOT be slander? It's slander because it's an accusation of a criminal act?

Still just making sure I understand, because I've posted that exact same advice on numerous occasions when it WAS for a non-criminal act, and this is the first time anyone's said otherwise. I don't want to mislead people if I don't have the definition correctly.

 

[Beth3]

IAAL, cbg and I have been having a discussion off-line this afternoon wondering how two charming and attractive HR professionals might be able to get in touch with you off the board. Any suggestions?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

IAAL, cbg and I have been having a discussion off-line this afternoon wondering how two charming and attractive HR professionals might be able to get in touch with you off the board. Any suggestions?

=====================================

My response:

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen - - unless the both of you give yourselves totally, and completely, over to me. You'll have to come over "to the dark side" permanently.

You wander onward into the darnkess, only to find yourself completely lost in the winding tunnels. You have the strangest feeling that you are no longer completely alone.

Suddenly, you feel a hand grip your own. It is startling and its hold is firm, but there is nothing threatening in the gesture.

You start, for a luminous white mask floats before you in the darkness. It is Erik. He studies you for a moment, then turns in a swirl of cloak and almost magically reveals a hidden doorway, pulling you gently behind him as he passes through it.

"Welcome to my labyrinth," whispers a stunning voice in the darkness.

The Phantom of the Opera.

Affectionately,

The Opera Ghost

 

[Beth3]

I'm thinking, I'm thinking...

 

[Beth3]

Okay. I'm liking the whole cloak thing. Count me in.