Dantea

[Dantea O.]

What is the name of your state? Tennessee

I work in an industry that is a very tight knit community. It is common for individuals to move from one company to another within the industry - especially in my town which is a major hub of activity for our industry.

I changed employers within the industry a few months ago. When I left, a VP of the company was very unhappy about me leaving and was visibly outraged. After I left, this VP gathered the entire office together and told the other employees to not have any contact with me. This has been confirmed by multiple employees who were present.

I recently received an e-mail from an employee of a competitor who also used to work at my former company. In the e-mail, I'm told that this VP of my former employer is spreading throughout the industry that I was terminated for poor performance. This is not true and I have multiple commendations documenting above average performance in the past 6 months.

I believe that the actions of this VP have damaged my reputation in the industry and have caused harm to my potential for future earnings. Would the one documented piece of evidence (the e-mail) be enough to prosecute a defamation suit? Were the instructions to the employees at my old company to not have any contact with me slanderous and would it help to have this documented in writing by employees who were present at the time?

 

[quincy]

There are five elements necessary for any defamation suit - publication of a defamatory comment (or saying something defamatory about a person to at least one additonal person); identification of the specific person (or pointing a finger at this person); the defamation itself (something said that injures the reputation of or, in some cases, causes emotional distress to the person); fault (which can either be words spoken with the knowledge that the words were false or words that were said with a reckless disregard for the truth - actual malice - or words spoken without "due care" - negligence....fault varies from state to state and you should consult with a lawyer on this); and injury - which can include a loss or reputational injury of some kind.

With the email, you can show publication (after proving that the contents of the email are actually an accurate report of what your former employer said), and you can show publication with the testimony of former co-workers. With your former co-workers, however, you must prove that your former employer instructed his employees to avoid you because he wanted to "injure" you and not just because he wanted to protect his business from the competition (which is now you). You have been identified as the person to whom the derogatory comments were addressed. Since you have a job currently, the defamation hasn't damaged you in the workplace, unless you can prove the slanderous words damaged your social standing, caused ridicule, or damaged your integrity, credibility or ability to carry on business.

You must also prove that your former employer did, in fact, say what he said about you and couched it in terms of fact and not opinion.

Lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming, and defamation suits where you are basing everything on second-hand reports are difficult. You must be able to PROVE your former employer said everything this co-worker said he said, so testimonies are important.

At this point, since you are employed and you can only speculate on future earning, I am not confident you have a case you can win, however, wait for responses from the attorneys on this forum who may think differently.

 

[Quaere]

The email is hearsay and has no value unless the sender heard the VP make the allegations and is willing to testify to that fact.

All of the information you are getting about this VP is second hand. The fact that he told employees to stay away from you may be justified. It all depends on what he said and the reason he gave for saying it.

In sum, you have a hint that this guy is defaming you. Once you have notice, you have only one year to file suit. If you think your sources are reliable and you can get enough detail to understand the full context in which this guy was talking, you may want to consult with an atty.

 

[quincy]

Ah, my old Nemesis Quaere!
I expected some sort of a challenge