Legal Question

[doylehargraves]

This is sort of an HR question as well. We have 2 employees, and one of them is accusing the other of slandering them in an e-mail that was distributed to several (internal) parties. It's gotten somewhat messy, especially when the one employee is threatening to sue the other for slandering her.

I think the lawsuit threat is just that, a threat. But how is slander defined in legal terms. Does it depend on what is said and who the recipient is of the slanderous e-mail, letter, etc? Or is the latter relevant?

 

[MilkmanDan]

It appears it would be libel.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[si se puede]

Were the contents of the e-mail true? Because truth is an affirmative defense.

 

[Texanne]

In order for such a suit to have legs, there must be three things:

1. Defamation. There must be a clear intention to harm.

2. Identification. The person must be specifically identified so that someone else would know who was being defamed.

3. Publication. It has to have been received by a third party. Doesn't matter that the third party works within the same company -- if someone other than the injured and the defamer sees it, it's considered to be published.

Depending on the content of these e-mails, there could very well be libel. Was the content untrue and malicious with intent to harm?

 

[doylehargraves]

Thanks. The statements made in the aforementioned e-mail were not true.

 

[ACuriae]

This is legal advice: talk to your lawyer. This isn't legal advice:

In Texas, defamation is publishing a factual statement of public interest that 1) referred to someone readily identifiable, 2) is defamatory and false, 3) published with actual malice or negligence (unless of the very narrow class of statements where fault is not an issue), and 4) proximately caused the person economic injury. Economic injury is not always required. Depending on the type of defamation, injury can be presumed.

Also, "truth" is not always a defense, especially in matters of private interest (not the best example: you publish a statement including my poor credit score without my consent--the defense of "substantial truth" is unlikely to help you; slightly better example: you tell the neighborhood without my consent that I have a narrow urethra and that's why Mrs. ACuriae can't get pregnant--again, "substantial truth" is not likely to help you).

The subject matter of the statement is very important. For example, if one person told several other people that another person is a *****, that's probably libel per se (impeaching a person's virtue/imputing sexual misconduct) and the law presumes that the defamed person will be entitled to general damages...which are not so difficult to prove anymore.

Vicarious liability is also a concern. Not because it's easy to prove, but because defending against it can be costly.