Do I have a libel/slander case or no?

[Crude]

What is the name of your state? TX

There are five necessary conditions for a slander or libel suit. The first is publication

Published. Done.
Individual made a statement to an EEO investigator doing an investigation into my EEO claim. I have a copy.

The other conditions that are necessary for defamation are identification, defamation, fault and injury.

Identification. Done
He knew that he was talking about me.

Defamation. Done
Stated to the investigator that he thought I might go "Postal".

Fault. Done
He was not a witness to the event he is describing, he was not in the room. He stated to the investigator that it "appeared that Complainant was on the verge of going "postal" with aircraft. No statements from any individuals that were present during the event said anything along these lines.

Injury. Done
How can a statement like that do anything but hinder my EEO claim?

Do I have a case yet?What is the name of your state?

 

[JETX]

Do I have a case yet?

Based SOLELY on the contents of your post... no.
His saying "that he thought" you might go 'postal' is simply his opinion.... and he is free to offer that without it being defamation.
Now, if he had said you DID go postal when you hadn't.... and if that met all the other criteria of defamation... you MIGHT have a case.
And if you did have a case of defamation... you would have to prove ACTUAL damages (which your post does not show).... and you would have to front about $10,000 in legal fees just to get a lawsuit started.

So, have $10k to throw away??

 

[tranquility]

I don't know the genesis of this so give no advice, but I believe comments made in such investigations are privileged.

 

[Crude]

He did not state "that he thought" anything, the sentence reads "Mr. XXXXXXXX states it appeared that Complainant was on the verge of going "postal" with aircraft."

How can one state that it appears that someone would do any action when one is not even an eyewitness to the event.

He did not state "I thought he would" anything.

Do not add words that are not there.

 

[Crude]

I don't know the genesis of this so give no advice, but I believe comments made in such investigations are privileged.

Comments made are privileged means what?

If he stated I committed murder, when I have not, then what?

 

[quincy]

"Privileged" communications are ones that are private - the information cannot be disclosed publicly. A communication between a lawyer and a client is privileged, a communiation between a doctor and a patient is privileged. It could be, as Tranquility said, that the communication between the EEO investigator and the people he talked to are private.

If the comment made by the person (co-worker?) was only communicated to the EEO investigator, and no one else heard the comment, and the communication was a privileged one, then you would not be able to bring a successful defamation suit. If, however, this comment was spread to at least one other person not involved directly with the investigation, then you might have the grounds for a suit.

I am not sure I agree with JetX that saying someone appeared to be "on the verge of going postal" is opinion. It is often difficult to distinguish opinion from fact, or implied fact. "Mixed" opinions are opinions expressed in such a way that one gathers from them that they are based on undisclosed facts. I think it could be argued that the comment made to the investigator was not only defamatory, but implied a deeper knowledge of you. This "implication" could lead the investigator to believe you were, indeed, disturbed enough to "go postal", or go crazy and possibly harm people. But it could be that the investigator phrased his question to this co-worker in such a way that it led to this response.

Quite frankly, based on the limited amount of information posted here, and because of the several unknowns (Was the communication with the investigator privileged? Was anyone else privy to the comment that should not have been? Would a judge rule the comment opinion or fact? Can you prove Injury?), it would be hard to say if you could sue successfully for defamation or not.

I suggest you go over all of the relevant facts with an attorney in your area, and only if you can prove that the words told to the investigator resulted in a reputational or monetary loss of some kind.

 

[tranquility]

If there was an official investigation, if the comments were made to government officials and were related to the investigation, I believe they are privileged in that malice would need to be proved to be actionable. I don't know why the term qualified immunity is not normally used, maybe it's just that I don't see it, but privileged, much. Also, I don't think it is malice in the way we normally use it in defamation, but tort malice.

If the police come to my door and ask about my neighbor, I can tell them what I think about the facts without fear of a defemation suit as long as I'm not intentionally lying to cause harm to the neighbor.

 

[quincy]

If the police came to your door and asked if you thought the neighbor was likely to go crazy and kill someone, you could say, without fear of a successful defamation suit against you, "Yes, I think the neighbor is on the verge of going postal." However, if the police come to your door to ask you what you think about the neighbor and you say, "I think my neighbor is on the verge of going postal," that comment implies knowledge of facts that the police may not have, and could be considered slanderous - especially if the police came to your door originally to ask about the neighbor's barking dogs. It all depends on the context, and, to a lesser degree, the intent. And a judge would have to determine whether it was opinion or implied fact.

Immunity for words written or spoken is called privilege. The immunity from prosecution would be either "qualified" or "absolute" privilege. Absolute privilege means that some people in some circumstances can state, without fear of prosecution, material which can be false and malicious and damaging to a reputation. These circumstances include judicial hearings, legislative hearings, public and official proceedings, and most of the information contained in a public record. Qualified privilege means, generally, that it is how defamatory material is handled that determines whether privilege exists at all. If what is said is a fair and accurate report coming from a privileged communication, then the privilege would stand, even if the report was based on falsities and malicious lies.

 

[Crude]

"Privileged" communications are ones that are private - the information cannot be disclosed publicly.

snip

It could be, as Tranquility said, that the communication between the EEO investigator and the people he talked to are private.

Not private but part of the ROI (report of investigation), only personal items within the ROI are privacy act material, not the entire report.

If the comment made by the person (co-worker?) was only communicated to the EEO investigator

Made to the investigator and now part of the report that is seen by other individuals.

If, however, this comment was spread to at least one other person not involved directly with the investigation, then you might have the grounds for a suit.

This is the part that I am not sure of _person not involved_. Other people will/have seen this report, who is involved, who is not?

"Mixed" opinions are opinions expressed in such a way that one gathers from them that they are based on undisclosed facts. I think it could be argued that the comment made to the investigator was not only defamatory, but implied a deeper knowledge of you. This "implication" could lead the investigator to believe you were, indeed, disturbed enough to "go postal", or go crazy and possibly harm people.

This is the part where it harms me, ruins my reputation. For a controller to be accused of intentionally putting aircraft in harm is like saying a doctor cuts into his patients with reckless abandon _ without regard for their safety. I had never been accused of anything like this (no formal discipline in 25 years) and now I_m unsafe with aircraft.

The individual making this statement was not in the room during the event, none of the statements from other individuals who did see/hear this event stated anything along the line of _going Postal_. Those other statements merely reported the facts of the event. This individual made this statement without proof or material fact that would lead a reasonable person to believe that this was possible. It was made solely to harm my character for the EEO complaint.

But it could be that the investigator phrased his question to this co-worker in such a way that it led to this response.

The investigator asked about an incident that occurred when on position and very busy, a supervisor came over and told me to sign onto the position (violate national orders) I could not believe that a supervisor would disturb a controller who is very busy when he had the capability to sign me onto the position himself. I uttered a few choice words along the lines of _G.D. supervisors think it_s more important to sign onto the F**king ARTS than to separate the F**king aircraft, I_ll sign on when I can!_

I suggest you go over all of the relevant facts with an attorney in your area, and only if you can prove that the words told to the investigator resulted in a reputational loss of some kind.

Wilco

Thanks for the reply.

 

[quincy]

Thanks for editing to include the "thanks".
You're welcome.