Defamation of Character in Florida

[PayrollHRGuy]

Unless you're talking out your rear.

Would @Litigator22 post be an example of that?

 

[quincy]

FIRST, do not overlook the strong likelihood of your former employer - with its deeper pockets - being found legally accountable for you damages! (Google: respondeat superior - literally, "let the superior the master answer")

Also note its added attractiveness to a trial lawyer considering taking the case on the come; i. e. on a contingency.

SECONDLY, please observe that you have not just one, but two separate causes of action sounding in tort - defamation and tortious interference with contract. (Remembering that an offer of employment was made and subsequently withdrawn solely due to the civil wrongs complained of.)

You must of course defer to your attorney, but my suggestion is that you give serious thought to filing a suit against your former employer and naming employees John/Jane Does 1, 2, 3, etc. and then proceed to a rigorous course of discovery.

The matter of seeking punitive damages should also be explored.

Did you post this in the wrong thread maybe, Litigator?

There was no offer of employment. The new employer had reserved any offer until references could be checked.

Rarely are defamation or tortious interference cases taken on a contingency basis.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Did you post this in the wrong thread maybe, Litigator?

There was no offer of employment. The new employer had reserved any offer until references could be checked.

Rarely are defamation or tortious interference cases taken on a contingency basis.

Maybe LitBoy is volunteering his services.

 

[Litigator22]

QUOTE="zddoodah, post: 3755447, member: 696479"]

Sorry for being tardy here. Been traveling.

Strong likelihood? Based on what? Even the OP doesn't know what the written statement said, and without knowing that, it's not possible to assess intelligently the merits of any claim the OP might have.

Based on the fact that the OP 's application for employment was initially approved (ostensibly because of a favorable reference from her then supervisor) and only to be withdrawn following the receipt of a "bad" reference.

Guess again. The relationship between an employer and a prospective employee is rarely (?) contractual in nature.

Rarely as in atypical?

I'll go out on a limb and venture to say that the expectations of an employer/employee relationship is NEVER viewed as being contractual in nature!

HOWEVER, the expectations of such a contractual relationship and its anticipated benefits are protected from malicious interference by another. Protected in the sense that one who with malice aforethought purposely causes a loss of those anticipated benefits can be held financially liable.

Authorities: (All emphasis mine)

"One who intentionally and improperly interferes with another's prospective contractual relation (except a contract to marry) is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary harm resulting from loss of the benefits of the relation, whether the interference consists of inducing or otherwise causing a third person not to enter into or continue the prospective relation or preventing the other from acquiring or continuing the prospective relation." Restatement of Torts (Second) Section 766B:

"The tort of unlawful interference with business is also known as interference
with prospective business advantage or interference with prospective contractual relations."
Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 689 (Tex. 1989). And cases cited.

"Courts have held employers liable for defamation if the employers communicated defamatory statements that injured former employees' reputations to prospective employers of the former employee. " See: Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 45 | Issue 1 Article 1 and cases cited.

The case of Whipple v. Reed Eye Associates, et al., No. 15-CV-6759L, 2016 WL 5719431 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2016) involved interference with prospective employment. There, the federal district court dismissed plaintiff’s claim for retaliation against her former employer and co-workers but preserved for litigation in state court her claims for interference with economic advantage and defamation.

Fini

 

[zddoodah]

FIRST, do not overlook the strong likelihood of your former employer - with its deeper pockets - being found legally accountable for you damages!

Strong likelihood? Based on what? Even the OP doesn't know what the written statement said, and without knowing that, it's not possible to assess intelligently the merits of any claim the OP might have.

Based on the fact that the OP 's application for employment was initially approved (ostensibly because of a favorable reference from her then supervisor) and only to be withdrawn following the receipt of a "bad" reference.

Ok...I agree that it was probably a "bad reference." But so what? Are you suggesting that every "bad reference" gives rise to a defamation claim? If so, that's patently absurd.

Rarely as in atypical?

I'll go out on a limb and venture to say that the expectations of an employer/employee relationship is NEVER viewed as being contractual in nature!

"Rarely" is less frequently than "atypical." However, I have no idea what it might mean for "expectations . . . [to be or not be] contractual in nature." It's the relationship that is or isn't contractual in nature and, since most employment in the U.S. is on an "at will" basis, then most employment is not contractual in nature.

HOWEVER, the expectations of such a contractual relationship and its anticipated benefits are protected from malicious interference by another. Protected in the sense that one who with malice aforethought purposely causes a loss of those anticipated benefits can be held financially liable.

Again, even the OP doesn't know what the written statement from the former supervisor said. It is thus impossible to assess the likelihood of success of any potential legal claim, and all the case law citations from jurisdictions that aren't the OP's jurisdiction don't change that.

 

[Zigner]

... since most employment in the U.S. is on an "at will" basis, then most employment is not contractual in nature.

I would actually think the exact opposite. It is a contract because person A agrees to do X in exchange for payment of Y by person (or entity) B. The contract can be terminated at-will, but it is still a contract.

 

[quincy]

QUOTE="zddoodah, post: 3755447, member: 696479"]

Sorry for being tardy here. Been traveling.



Based on the fact that the OP 's application for employment was initially approved (ostensibly because of a favorable reference from her then supervisor) and only to be withdrawn following the receipt of a "bad" reference.



Rarely as in atypical?

I'll go out on a limb and venture to say that the expectations of an employer/employee relationship is NEVER viewed as being contractual in nature!

HOWEVER, the expectations of such a contractual relationship and its anticipated benefits are protected from malicious interference by another. Protected in the sense that one who with malice aforethought purposely causes a loss of those anticipated benefits can be held financially liable.

Authorities: (All emphasis mine)

"One who intentionally and improperly interferes with another's prospective contractual relation (except a contract to marry) is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary harm resulting from loss of the benefits of the relation, whether the interference consists of inducing or otherwise causing a third person not to enter into or continue the prospective relation or preventing the other from acquiring or continuing the prospective relation." Restatement of Torts (Second) Section 766B:

"The tort of unlawful interference with business is also known as interference
with prospective business advantage or interference with prospective contractual relations."
Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 689 (Tex. 1989). And cases cited.

"Courts have held employers liable for defamation if the employers communicated defamatory statements that injured former employees' reputations to prospective employers of the former employee. " See: Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 45 | Issue 1 Article 1 and cases cited.

The case of Whipple v. Reed Eye Associates, et al., No. 15-CV-6759L, 2016 WL 5719431 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2016) involved interference with prospective employment. There, the federal district court dismissed plaintiff’s claim for retaliation against her former employer and co-workers but preserved for litigation in state court her claims for interference with economic advantage and defamation.

Fini

The major problem for Floridagirl2222 in considering ANY legal action of ANY kind is that Floridagirl2222 has no idea what was communicated by her supervisor to the potential employer, or why it was communicated (or even if, in fact, anything was communicated at all).

For whatever reason, the potential employer chose not to extend an offer of employment to Floridagirl2222. Without knowing far more, a lawsuit is doomed to fail.