The Staples case (Noonan v Staples, D.C. Mass, No. 06-10716) was a bit of an anomaly, and proceeded as far as it did due to a 1902 Massachusetts statute (Mass Gen Laws Ch.231 §92) that allows for true statements to be actionable. This statute has been ruled in the past to be unconstitutional as it applies to public figures and to matters of public concern (see the Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co v Sullivan), but not as it applies to private individuals.
The statute itself says: "...even a true statement can form the basis of a libel action if the plaintiff proves that the defendant acted with 'actual malice'." Actual malice is generally defined in defamation as the deliberate intent to cause harm through the publication of a statement that is knowingly false or with a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, but actual malice can also be defined as a demonstrated showing of hatred and ill will toward a person.
Because this Massachusetts statute allows for a defamation suit based on truthful but reputationally injurious statements published with actual malice, Noonan, a Staples employee, filed a defamation suit against his employer Staples, for having sent a mass email to Staples' employees truthfully informing the Staples' employees of Noonan's firing over violations of company policies.
The District Court found for Staples, because the statements made in the email were true and truth is a defense to defamation, but Noonan appealed the decision.
For defamation in Massachusetts, the required elements are that a published statement about an identified or identifiable person is false, is communicated to a third party, and the defamatory statement causes economic loss, or reputational injury without economic loss.
The Appeals Court only decided Staples motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case back to the District Court on the matter of "actual malice." The District Court jury found for Staples - determining that the emails about Noonan were not sent by Staples with the actual malice required by the Massachusetts statute.
In this particular forum posting, Daniella is from Maine and not Massachusetts, and the term "lazy" is an opinion that cannot be proved true or false, so it would not be defamatory. Opinions are a protected form of speech, as long as the opinions do not state or imply false facts, this even if another person places a great deal of weight on the opinions expressed and forms their own conclusion about an individual based on these opinions. Again, opinions are a protected form of speech only if the opinions do not stray from "pure" opinion into an expression of false or implied false facts.
To go back to the Staples case and as a side note, Noonan may have had more success with a "publication of private facts" action as opposed to a defamation action, as the publication of private facts tort (an invasion of privacy tort) is based on the publication of true but private facts.
As for who on the FreeAdvice forum are attorneys and who are not, read the Terms of Service at the bottom of the page. Most who offer advice on this forum are not attorneys, but most of the senior members will have experience with or knowledge in a specific area of the law. There are, however, lawyers who post to this forum - some publicly state that they are attorneys and they are verified by FA as attorneys, while others who are attorneys prefer not to publicly disclose the fact that they are attorneys, for whatever reason. You can click on any poster's name to read profiles, which may (or may not) tell you what you want to know about an FA member. The important thing to note on any advice offered here is that it does not, and definitely should not, take the place of advice you get from an attorney licensed to practice in your area. The advice offered here is based on a limited amount of information provided by a poster. For advice specific to any one individual, a review of all of the facts is necessary and, again, should be sought out from an attorney in one's own area.
