aspiring lawyer needs your advice

[henry hill]

What is the name of your state? Washington

My question concerns libel / defamation and the possibility of tortuous interference with employment relationship.

My employer was contacted by third party. Within the email titled "complain about one of your employees" (there was never any business or potential business interaction between the two other parties) the Ceo of **************.... stated "understand how the actions of a psychotic employee can cost tons in legal fees and wasted time. Please be advised". They also wrote "I will assure Mr. Hill that our legal department is fully prepared to deal with him, should that be necessary".

I was immediately terminated in response to that email. The email was given as the sole reason for termination. I have emails within the month from my CEO, Manager and Supervisor singing my praise at work. I was never reprimanded for any occasion at that employer. Washington is an "employment at will" state

1- Do I have a solid case for defamation against third party since I can show actual damage?

2- Is tortuous interference with employment relationship recognized in Washington state law? Would that be a stronger case?

3- What is the time limit to file?

Thank you for your assistance. After being in the "sales" profession for 10 years this was the straw that broke the camels back. I have always followed and had interest in the law. After countless hours researching my potential case, the decision was made to head back to school and start on a new career.

Thank you for any advice.

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? Washington

My question concerns libel / defamation and the possibility of tortuous interference with employment relationship.

My employer was contacted by third party. Within the email titled "complain about one of your employees" (there was never any business or potential business interaction between the two other parties) the Ceo of **************.... stated "understand how the actions of a psychotic employee can cost tons in legal fees and wasted time. Please be advised". They also wrote "I will assure Mr. Hill that our legal department is fully prepared to deal with him, should that be necessary".

I was immediately terminated in response to that email. The email was given as the sole reason for termination. I have emails within the month from my CEO, Manager and Supervisor singing my praise at work. I was never reprimanded for any occasion at that employer. Washington is an "employment at will" state

1- Do I have a solid case for defamation against third party since I can show actual damage?

2- Is tortuous interference with employment relationship recognized in Washington state law? Would that be a stronger case?

3- What is the time limit to file?

Thank you for your assistance. After being in the "sales" profession for 10 years this was the straw that broke the camels back. I have always followed and had interest in the law. After countless hours researching my potential case, the decision was made to head back to school and start on a new career.

Thank you for any advice.

Q: 1- Do I have a solid case for defamation against third party since I can show actual damage?

A: You have to show defamation before you get to show damages and your post contains nothing defamatory. But, if you want to invest $20K (minimum) and three or four years in court, then go hire a lawyer.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I agree with Sj. You have no case of defamation nor against your employer unless you can show an employment contract which lists grounds for dismissal and these grounds were not met.

 

[henry hill]

thank you for your responses.

So the "psychotic employee" would be considered opinion not defamation?

also this person had to research the contact info to my CEO, does that not show malice or intentional act? His email was why I got fired.

You're saying there is nothing I can do about that?

thank you again.

 

[henry hill]

also, what about the tort?

I have been researching that and only started to look at the defamation approach recommended by a Washington state law advisor who was unfamiliar with that tort.

Tortuous Interference with Employment Relationship requires four elements:

1) there must be an interference with employment relationship.
2) the interference must be intentional or negligent.
3) there must be causation
4) actual damage.


Which I can show**************right?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

also, what about the tort?

I have been researching that and only started to look at the defamation approach recommended by a Washington state law advisor who was unfamiliar with that tort.

Tortuous Interference with Employment Relationship requires four elements:

1) there must be an interference with employment relationship.
2) the interference must be intentional or negligent.
3) there must be causation
4) actual damage.


Which I can show**************right?

wrong. Try again.

 

[Menthol]

Was the email sent to your employer accurate? If the individual can prove that the information was accurate then you have no case.

 

[ReasonableLitig]

Callous and Terse

You responders must be beginning your 2nd year of law school whereby you now believe thy excrement stinketh not. Can't you people answer the guys question without the pompt and arrongance reeking from your short answers. Or are such short answers your ways of responding when you indeed are not quite sure of his legal position. Why not offer some real feedback with substance?

 

[quincy]

Henry, I am not sure you posted enough information to allow any of us to give you a proper answer. You will definitely need to sit down with a Washington lawyer to get a better idea of whether any action against this third party or your employer has merit and is worth pursuing.

One important fact you did not include is your relationship with the third party who contacted your employer. Also not included in your post is the reason why this third party found it necessary to contact your employer. Both answers are vital in order to understand your situation.

With what you did post, however, I can tell you that calling someone "psychotic" can be hyperbole and, therefore, not defamatory. If this third person used the word psychotic in the medical sense when communicating to your employer about you, however - and you are not medically diagnosed as psychotic (as having a psychosis) - then it is defamatory. Someone who is psychotic has a major mental disorder, with a disorganized personality and an impaired contact with reality. It is defamatory if untrue and not used as hyperbole.

As for Washington having a "tortuous interference with employment" tort, the answer is yes. I believe you have 5 years to file (on this I am not sure, however). Even though termination of an employment-at-will position cannot serve as the basis for a wrongful discharge claim, a claim can be asserted for interference with at-will employment that results in termination. Employment-at-will is terminable but, even so, a third person may not improperly interfere with valid employment.

There are several proofs required to bring a tortuous interference with employment claim, and these are generally not easy proofs. You must prove, for instance, that this third person was not "privileged" to interfere with the employment, and that this third person's primary motive was to financially injure or destroy you. The interference must be intentional and improper. Intent alone may not be sufficient to make interference improper, however, if the termination after the interference was a necessary consequence. You must show that the action by this third party was not done to protect the interests of the business, for instance.

Improper interference takes into consideration the nature of the conduct, the motive, the interests of the party with which the conduct interferes, the interest sought to be advanced by the third party, the interests in protecting the freedom of action of the third party, contractual interests of the third party, the nearness or remoteness of the third party's conduct to interference with the employment, and the relations between all parties involved.

The most common basis for tortuous interference with employment is defamation, although others are fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, and misuse of confidentiality. Also, if the standard of practice in the business you are in requires an investigation before termination, any failure to investigate can be evidence that the termination was improper.

Again, I can see a possibility of a defamation claim if the term psychotic was used to label you with a medical condition and this medical condition does not exist. There are too many things you left out of your post, however, to determine whether a tortuous interference with employment claim can be a legitimate course of action for you to take.

Talk to a Washington lawyer, for a more accurate and complete explanation of any possible recourse you can take for your employment termination.

(and ReasonableLitig - I offered a LONG answer, and I am not sure of his legal position either. Sometimes it is not the fault of those who answer but those who post)

 

[quincy]

I cannot believe I spent time answering a year and a half old post. Geez.
If you want to post complaints, ReasonableLitig, start your own blasted thread next time, instead of digging up old posts.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

aw that sucks quincy. you were nice to try though.

im wondering now if this guy ever did go to law school like he was thinking about

 

[quincy]

I am wondering three things: One, if ReasonableLitig thought my long post was "reeking" with as much "pompt and arrongance" as the short answers, and two, if second year law students really believe their "excrement stinketh not", and three, if Henry Hill went to law school, is in his second year of law school, and came back as ReasonableLitig.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

hahahaha that could be it!