Defamation of Character question.

[armywife000]

Colorado
My brother got fired from his job because a co-worker made a retaliation false complaint with corporate saying that he threatened her. Can he sue either the person or the company for defamation of character/wrongful termination? They did not investigate it, they just took her side even though others were saying he didn't do it.

 

[cbg]

He has no claim against the employer. This is not a wrongful termination under the law (read my signature to find out why) and they are allowed to believe the other employee.

He *might* be able to sue the other employee IF he can prove, and the burden of proof is on him, that the other employee lied. Not, misinterpreted something he did say; not, misunderstood; not, jumped to wrong conclusions; not, was mistaken about something, but deliberately uttered a statement that he knew at the time to be untrue.

If he believes he can do this, he can discuss it with a local attorney.

 

[john39]

He has no claim against the employer. This is not a wrongful termination under the law (read my signature to find out why) and they are allowed to believe the other employee.

He *might* be able to sue the other employee IF he can prove, and the burden of proof is on him, that the other employee lied. Not, misinterpreted something he did say; not, misunderstood; not, jumped to wrong conclusions; not, was mistaken about something, but deliberately uttered a statement that he knew at the time to be untrue.

If he believes he can do this, he can discuss it with a local attorney.

Not true

In defamation claims the burden of proof is on the defendant, to prove that the allegations he made are true.

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition.If someone asserts threat has been made,you can not put the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made.(to prove that he lied as you say)

The person making a negative claim (like for example," no I did not make a threat" )cannot logically prove (the nonexistence of ) that. And here's why: to know that such threat was never made, would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that such threat was never made one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent.

Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities.

Right,cbg?

 

[Proserpina]

quincy will correct me if I'm wrong here

The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the allegations are not just false, but that the defendant knew that they were false. In other words, malice needs to be proven.

(Generally speaking - there are some exceptions, such as defamation per se )

Truth is a defense to a defamation action. But it's not necessarily the defendant's burden to prove a darned thing.

 

[john39]

quincy will correct me if I'm wrong here

The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the allegations are not just false, but that the defendant knew that they were false. In other words, malice needs to be proven.

(Generally speaking - there are some exceptions, such as defamation per se )

Truth is a defense to a defamation action. But it's not necessarily the defendant's burden to prove a darned thing.

Whatsup Proserpina !

It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true.

A defendant is not required to prove that every allegation is true. The Defamation Act 1952 provides that where the words complained of contain two or more distinct allegations a defence of justification can still succeed if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant’s reputation having regard to the imputations which are proved true.

What does "burden of proof mean" Proserpina?
It means ,in this case,and every other case of defamation that the presumption is that the assertion the defendant made,was false,until he proves it was true.

The reason why is that set up that way is,like I said,somethings are impossible to prove that were not said.

The defendant claimed threat was made.How do you prove that threat was not made?

 

[john39]

quincy will correct me if I'm wrong here

The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the allegations are not just false, but that the defendant knew that they were false. In other words, malice needs to be proven.

No,...the defendant knew,or should have known that they were false.


Thus,"in other words" malice is not inferred from "he should have known" (negligence) therefore,malice is not an element in defamation claim

 

[Proserpina]

Congratulations on editing your post while I responding, john.


That is NOT what you originally said and you KNOW it.



I'll leave this in quincy's hands.

 

[john39]

Congratulations on editing your post while I responding, john.


That is NOT what you originally said and you KNOW it.



I'll leave this in quincy's hands.

whatcha talkin about?

I edit my gammmmmaaa.
I edited on 11.55 pm

You posted on 11.54 pm

So what did I change in one minute....because you showed up?

What did I originally say?

I don't need to cheat when I play with the seniors.

 

[quincy]

How are things in the U.K., john? This site is for U.S. law only.

 

[john39]

How are things in the U.K., john? This site is for U.S. law only.

I was talkin about U.S. Law Quincy




Tell me that I am wrong ,and where I am wrong so we can talk ,ya know....whoops ya you right The Defamation Act 1952,not applied to USA...he he he it is UK

So,how is here different?

are this elements of defamation in U.S ?

Defamation consists of the following:
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

 

[quincy]

There are significant differences in defamation laws between the U.S. and the U.K. There can also be significant differences in defamation laws between the different states in the U.S.

There are SO many differences, in fact, that it would be impossible to list all of the differences here, but, for one, we do not have a Defamation Act and, for two, we spell defense with an "s" not a "c".

The elements required for a defamation suit in the U.S. are also different and more extensive than what you listed. And not all defamation suits in the U.S. require a showing of actual malice (which is your number three).

Pretty much everything you wrote would not apply in the U.S. Everything Proserpina and cbg wrote would.

I suggest that, if you are interested in giving free advice, john, you find an advice forum based in the U.K. Your advice, while not all that helpful here, could potentially have some value there.


A question for armywife000: You said that the co-worker's complaint was a "retaliation false complaint." Had your husband filed a complaint with his employer against this co-worker and, if so, what sort of complaint?

 

[john39]

you are absolutely right quincy.

I just checked the differences between U.S. and England and other European countries.

I am surprised though.I like the European solution in respect to defamation claim,I said why.

I owe cbg,Proserpina and you an apology.

I was wrong!!!

I am sorry

 

[Proserpina]

you are absolutely right quincy.

I just checked the differences between U.S. and England and other European countries.

I am surprised though.I like the European solution in respect to defamation claim,I said why.

I owe cbg,Proserpina and you an apology.

I was wrong!!!

I am sorry

Thank you very much

 

[cbg]

Not many people have the courage to come back and admit that. It is appreciated.

 

[john39]

I better admit I am wrong ,when the cool and cleansing light of an irrefutable fact hits my faulty argument,no matter how passionate,or even fanatical my belief is.

Sure,I think it sucks to request from Plaintiff in defamation claim, to prove absolute negatives in order to clear his/hers name from slander or libel.But,I was dead wrong to believe that because it sucks,it is not a fact .So I was wrong and I am sorry to behaved like I knew this, even though I did not check first,and I was wrong to claim you did not know it,when you did.

Is that courageous or not,as in virtue, I am not sure. A brute is courageous on instinct,solder can be courageous because of x.....reasons,but someone proven wrong can be courageous out of fear that will look worse had he not displayed courage to apologize . What I mean is,(maybe? ) not all courage is virtuous?

If so,is admitting that the ultimate courage (without virtue)?just kidding I really mean it.I don't have ego (online )