To Slander or not to slander

[mrsgrayston]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? OK

If an officer(X) of a company where to tell someone(Y) outside of the company negative performance information about an employee(M).

Then person(Y) told another person(Z) outside the company the negative information about the employee.

The second outside person(Z) told the employee(M) about the conversation and negative remarks.

Can the company be held liable for the information leak? Is that considered Slander or Defamation of Character? Is company information confidential?

 

[cbg]

No and no.

You would only have a defamation case if 1.) the negative information was untrue AND 2.) the employee in question suffered damages from it. Embarassment is not damages.

Note that by untrue I mean it was a LIE. Not a misunderstanding, not someone's negative but honestly held opinion, not an honest mistake, but a LIE. "mrsgrayson was fired for stealing" when mrsgrayson quit is a LIE. "We were not happy with the way mrsgrayson interacted with her co-workers" is an opinion and cannot be used against them in a defamation case.

 

[mrsgrayston]

1.) the negative information was untrue AND

So if the events were (X) told (Y) the information. The true information the facts =(A) What (Y) tolded (Z) was (C,D)
Would that be slander right?

 

[You Are Guilty]

So if the events were (X) told (Y) the information. The true information the facts =(A) What (Y) tolded (Z) was (C,D)
Would that be slander right?

Although I went to law school because I flunked algebra, I think the answer is X=42.

 

[mrsgrayston]

ROTFLMAO

Thanks for the laugh.. I sure as hell need one

 

[mrsgrayston]

Another question:

Let say an employer had there employee sign a paper (contract) When the paper was signed by an employee he did not read it, because the HR person told him why the company did it. The employee said ok im not worried about that and signed it. There was other thing that would be used against this employee after termination. Is not reading it any excuse?

Thank you for the tip YOU ARE GUILTY

 

[HomeGuru]

Another question:

Let say an employer had there employee sign a paper (contract) When the paper was signed by an employee he did not read it, because the HR person told him why the company did it. The employee said ok im not worried about that and signed it. There was other thing that would be used against this employee after termination. Is not reading it any excuse?

Thank you for the tip YOU ARE GUILTY

**A: No, being stupid, ignorant and an idiot is not a valid excuse.

 

[dequeendistress]

Actually it is just improper usage of the word: excuse
The reason is

**A: being stupid, ignorant and an idiot

 

[cbg]

I can't for the life of me figure out what you're trying to ask. I'd like to help but you're going to have to clarify the question.

 

[mrsgrayston]

Ok let’s say Frank is an officer of a company. Frank has a girlfriend that is not employed by the company named Sally.
Frank tells Sally negative information about an employee
(Jack).

Now Jack happens to be Sally's X-son-in-law.

Sally tell Carrie negative information which concerned Jack's termination. Now the information that Sally gave Carrie was not the reason that Jack was fire. Jack was told something totally different when he was terminated and in the response the company sent in for unemployment benefits. Jack did however get Unemployment benefits. The point is
I would think that Jack's employee records are confidential
Not publicly trade like it where a stock!!

Gives new meaning to In-law problems... lol

I hope this helps this is the best I could do to. Thanks for any more help in the matter you can give.

 

[cbg]

While professional behavior would suggest that personnel records should be held confidential and no information released except on a need-to-know basis, no law compels that to happen. Personnel records are company property and the company is free to share whatever information they choose with whomever they choose. It doesn't matter whether it is positive information or negative, nothing in the hypothetical you describe violates any laws.

The only exception to that would be if the "negative information" happened to be medical information AND it was obtained from the group health insurance AND a few other caveats besides. THEN and only then, would an actual law (as opposed to good taste and professional behavior) have been violated.

 

[mrsgrayston]

Thank you for the information cbg, hope you have a great weekend