Burden of proof

[NellieBly]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MA

Who has the burden of proof in a defamation suit in Massachusetts?

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MA

Who has the burden of proof in a defamation suit in Massachusetts?

Both parties.

The burden shifts from plaintiff (who must prove a defamatory statement was made about him to others by the defendant with the requisite degree of fault and his reputation was injured as a result) to the defendant (who must prove he did not make the statement, the statement was not defamatory, the statement was privileged, the statement was true or substantially true, or whatever other defense the defendant may have).

Why?

 

[NellieBly]

As far as being privileged, I was told that the name of the party who wrote a letter to the school department was "confidential" yet, it surfaced in a statement made to my union lawyer. The guy also is a crossing guard. The other criteria have been met.

Yes, I'm still beating that dead horse of being fired. Sorry.

 

[quincy]

As far as being privileged, I was told that the name of the party who wrote a letter to the school department was "confidential" yet, it surfaced in a statement made to my union lawyer. The guy also is a crossing guard. The other criteria have been met.

Yes, I'm still beating that dead horse of being fired. Sorry.

Information communicated by an employee to an employer about a matter of interest to that employer/company would generally be considered a privileged communication. The reason for these types of communications being privileged is so that employees can tell their employers about what other employees are doing or are suspected of doing that could harm the employer. They are able to tell their employers without fear of being sued for defamation if what they say turns out to be false.

These types of statements are covered by "qualified" privileges, however, which potentially can be challenged and defeated if it can be shown that what was communicated by a person was communicated with actual malice (a knowing falsity made with the intent to cause harm).

The fact that the union lawyer learned of the statement about you, and who said it, is not surprising because everything needed to be disclosed to the attorney. Disclosures made by the employer to the attorney would also be privileged. And most hearings on the matter would be privileged.

I understand that you feel your reputation has been harmed by statements claiming you were not at your crossing guard station at your assigned time. I know that you feel you were not given the opportunity to defend yourself properly against the false claims. But I do not see that you have a defamation action that you could pursue with much chance of success against the person who made the initial report to your employer.

I believe it is unhealthy for you to continue to concentrate on what happened. If you qualify for unemployment benefits, I think that is the most you can expect from your job termination. You might want to divert your attention away from your old job and toward finding another job (although I am aware this is easier said than done when age and health are factors). Perhaps you could do some volunteer work until a satisfactory paying job is located.

You can run your situation by an attorney in your area if you want a personal review but I am afraid I am not seeing any legal action you can take based on what you have said in this thread and in your other threads. Sorry.

 

[NellieBly]

I am not going to find another job because I was fired for "falsifying public documents" (time cards).

A friend and I were discussing this today and when I mentioned his name, she said she knew who he is and that "he's not all there."

 

[quincy]

I am not going to find another job because I was fired for "falsifying public documents" (time cards).

A friend and I were discussing this today and when I mentioned his name, she said she knew who he is and that "he's not all there."

First, I want to caution you about speaking to others about the employee who reported you. When you speak to friends or acquaintances, there is no privilege that covers what you say.

There is no reason to believe that your former employer will pass on to prospective employers the reason for your termination. Most employers are very careful in what they say about former employees, often limiting the information they pass on to dates of employment.

Again, you can run your situation by an attorney in your area who is well-versed in defamation law, to see if that attorney sees something that I am not seeing.

Good luck, NellieBly.

 

[cbg]

You're certainly not going to find one if you don't try.

 

[quincy]

People get fired all the time, for a whole assortment of reasons that may seem unfair and wrong. Most people are able to move on.

Instead of spending time rehashing the events of the past and trying to change what cannot be changed, it is best to look at what happened as an opportunity to be creative in exploring other opportunities. Again, volunteers are always being sought in all areas. Volunteering is healthy and can lead to paying jobs.

This is now veering into Dr. Phil territory, though. Legally, I see nothing that can be done about the loss of the job.