Old Boss vs New Boss

[AverageJoeMama]

What is the name of your state? TN

Legally, is your old employer allowed to talk about you to your new employer AFTER you've been hired?

When I turned in my notice to go work for another company in a similar field (medical), my old employer tried to get me to reconsider by offering me a promotion, a raise, and my own office. I declined their counter offer and we parted on good terms.

This new job, although with a completely different company, will still require me to interact occasionally with my old job, as they work hand in hand together in the medical field

Now I've learned that my previous boss called my new boss and told him that I was a "troublemaker employee" and that they have concerns that I am going to "continue to make trouble" with the staff if I return with their company, along with other lies.

This information is blatantly false and I left in good standing- I was never a problem employee or did any of the things that my old boss is accusing me of.

Legally, is your old employer allowed to talk about you to your new employer AFTER you've been hired?

 

[quincy]

Legally your old employer is allowed to talk to your new employer about you. Your old employer is not allowed, however, to tell damaging falsehoods about you.

 

[cbg]

Before you're hired, after you're hired, during the hiring process. No law anywhere in the US prohibits your old boss from talking about you to you new boss, any time, any place.

He is, however required to tell the truth, or his honest and supportable opinion.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to information on Tennessee’s defamation laws:
https://withoutmyconsent.org/50state/state-guides/tennessee/common-law/#defamation

Tennessee does not differentiate between per se (on its face) defamation and per quod (requiring extrinsic facts) defamation. For a defamation claim, you must plead and prove harm to your reputation has resulted from the false statements made about you. There is no presumed injury.

Tennessee has a 6-month statute of limitations for filing a slander (oral defamation) action. There is a one-year statute of limitations for libel (written defamation).

 

[Taxing Matters]

He is, however required to tell the truth, or his honest and supportable opinion.

Not exactly. There is no law that mandates that, i.e. no law that affirmatively states he must tell the truth. Instead, the old employer opens himself up to a possible defamation claim if he makes false statements of fact about AverageJoeMama that harms her reputation. Statements of pure opinion are not defamatory, and such statements by their nature are not "supportable" either way. Opinions are not factual and cannot be proven true or false. So a statement of opinion, whether "honest" or not, is not defamatory.

 

[quincy]

AverageJoeMama potentially has a “tortious interference with business relations” claim to consider, as well, in addition to a defamation claim - depending on all facts and the resulting demonstrable harm.

 

[Taxing Matters]

AverageJoeMama potentially has a “tortious interference with business relations” claim to consider, as well, in addition to a defamation claim - depending on all facts and the resulting demonstrable harm.

Perhaps, but such claims are not easy to make. The Tennessee Supreme Court has laid out the following requirements for succeeding with that tort:

Consequently, in view of the foregoing, we believe that continued abolition of the tort in this state would be unreasonable. Instead, we expressly adopt the tort of intentional interference with business relationships, thereby overruling that portion of our decision in Nelson. We also hold that liability should be imposed on the interfering party provided that the plaintiff can demonstrate the following: (1) an existing business relationship with specific third parties or a prospective relationship with an identifiable class of third persons; (2) the defendant's knowledge of that relationship and not a mere awareness of the plaintiff's business dealings with others in general; (3) the defendant's intent to cause the breach or termination of the business relationship; (4) the defendant's improper motive or improper means, see, e.g., Top Serv. Body Shop, 582 P.2d at 1371; and finally, (5) damages resulting from the tortious interference.​

​

Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 701 (Tenn. 2002)(emphasis in original).

 

[quincy]

I don’t think the elements would necessarily be hard to prove here. I can’t see how false statements about AverageJoeMama made by the former employer to the new employer could have a proper motive. The major difficulty, both with defamation and with tortious interference, would be showing damages enough to support a legal action - and, of course, being able to prove that false statements were actually communicated.

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state? TN

Legally, is your old employer allowed to talk about you to your new employer AFTER you've been hired?

When I turned in my notice to go work for another company in a similar field (medical), my old employer tried to get me to reconsider by offering me a promotion, a raise, and my own office. I declined their counter offer and we parted on good terms.

This new job, although with a completely different company, will still require me to interact occasionally with my old job, as they work hand in hand together in the medical field

Now I've learned that my previous boss called my new boss and told him that I was a "troublemaker employee" and that they have concerns that I am going to "continue to make trouble" with the staff if I return with their company, along with other lies.

This information is blatantly false and I left in good standing- I was never a problem employee or did any of the things that my old boss is accusing me of.

Legally, is your old employer allowed to talk about you to your new employer AFTER you've been hired?

Who told you that your old boss said these things? Why were you told?

 

[quincy]

Who told you that your old boss said these things? Why were you told?

That is key. There must be evidence of some sort that false statements were actually published.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I don’t think the elements would necessarily be hard to prove here. I can’t see how false statements about AverageJoeMama made by the former employer to the new employer could have a proper motive.

The former employer does not need to have a proper motive. He just can't have an improper motive. And no, the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[quincy]

Picky, picky.

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/improper

https://www.Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/improper

Black’s Law Dictionary:
Improper. Not suitable; unfit.
Proper. That which is fit; suitable.

 

[cbg]

Will you accept, he is required to tell the truth, or his honest and supportable opinion, if he wants to keep out of potential legal trouble/

 

[commentator]

Okay, we can split hairs here all day long. but in the long run, unless there is a whole lot more going on than we know, I fail to see why it would be of any benefit to launch such a suit. If you went in and claimed that in some way, this information imparted to him/her by the current employer, supposedly the opinion of the past employer, is detrimental to this person now I think it would be hard to prove.

Which, from my reading, it isn't a problem, she's just real steamed about it. I don't blame her, and yes, this was a low down trick. It isn't illegal. It's an opinion. A sneaky trick designed to make the new employer question the new hire, watch out for trouble perhaps a bit more than they would otherwise. I have seen it happen lots of times. Usually what happens is that some time later, once the person is established at the new job, they find out they were subjected to this type of sabotage by a disappointed ex-employer.

When she says, "medical" I think of medical offices, which in my opinion and by my observation are about the worst possible employers because of the level of pettiness and gossip and general mismanagement that goes on. BUT at present, she is employed, her current boss is apparently happy with her, and felt like sharing these negatives with her just in the name of "well, let me tell you what that jerk said about you!" And though it is probably something that might legally be considered damaging falsehoods.... particularly if she could show... I don't know.

Why would one want to fool with it? It would cost a lot of money, would stir up a lot of controversy, would be VERY HARD to prove, I do not see that anything concrete and helpful could possibly come from it. Tennessee is a VERY employer friendly state. In the courts and in the workplace, there is not much mercy for anyone except the sacred employer. And remember, your current boss is NOT going to go out on a limb and testify for you in ANY sort of legal action about what a medical colleague said about you, their employee. In fact, I cannot see such an action against a past employer as doing anything but hurting you. It might even get you fired from your current job, from some other cause, of course.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Will you accept, he is required to tell the truth, or his honest and supportable opinion, if he wants to keep out of potential legal trouble/

I have a problem with "honest and supportable opinion". Opinion is by its nature something you cannot prove. So how does one support something that cannot be proved? Moreover, the law of defamation does not make any distinction between "honest" opinion and any other opinion. If the statement is purely one of opinion it is not defamatory, whether the opinion is "honest" or not.

When discussing defamation, it's important to focus on what is actionable: a false statement of fact that injures the reputation of the plaintiff. Opinion of whatever sort that does not convey a statement of fact is not going to be actionable as defamation.

Picky, picky.

The law is made, and cases won and lost, on such distinctions. I deal with that all the time in my practice. It is not as irrelevant as you seemingly want it to be.