Category Archives: Arizona Defamation Law Questions
Can Employees Sue Supervisors Over Workplace Gossip and Internal Investigations?
The workplace can be…difficult. Personalities clash; competition abounds; people talk. Which raises the question: What are the legal ramifications of a boss gossiping about an underling in the hopes of uncovering pink-slip-worthy dirt? What if the investigation is fruitless? Can the employee file a defamation lawsuit in response?
Can An Employee Sue A Boss Over An Internal Investigation?
Can the target of a fishing expedition successfully sue their superior for defamation? It depends. Each case is different and small factors can dramatically affect the outcome.
That said, let’s deconstruct a recent Arizona defamation case involving a supervisor defendant and employee plaintiff, wherein the supervisor ultimately won on privilege grounds.
Expense Reports and Deleted Emails Lead to Office Investigation
An Arizona government office was dealing with some internal strife. A supervisor allegedly suspected a supplicant of inappropriately erasing important emails and exploiting an expense account.
In defense, the underling argued that he’d done nothing wrong, as he’d backed up the emails before erasing and didn’t misuse an expense account.
Office Probe Produces Nothing
Fortunately for the staffer, the probe proffered nothing. So, the staffer filed a defamation lawsuit over the inquiry.
The employee averred purposeful abuse of process on the part of his employer, and accused the honcho of defamatory acts executed as part of an orchestrated attempt to embarrass.
Defendant: “I’m Allowed To Investigate Subordinates, Even If I’m Wrong! It’s Called Privilege, And I Have It!”
In defense of the defamation charge, the supervisor argued privilege. He contended that in a professional environment — especially a governmental one— higher-ups reserve the right to explore suspicions of workplace misconduct regardless of whether or not they’re proved baseless.
When the suit first hit, the defendant claimed immunity by way of privilege, but a lower court disagreed, allowing the case to proceed.
An appeals bench, however, recently overturned the ruling, reasoning that the supervisory body had every right to investigate any suspicions of wrong-doing.
Speak With An Arizona Defamation Lawyer
Are you struggling with a reputation attack? Has a competitor or rival maliciously – and falsely – dragged your name through the mud? If yes, legal remedies are available. Get in touch, we have the answers to your questions.
Clearing your good name may be a quicker process that you think.
Is It Defamatory to Call A Lawsuit Frivolous?
A newspaper won a libel lawsuit against a recidivist pro se claimant. The case answers the question: Is It Defamatory to Call A Lawsuit Frivolous?
Investigative Report Leads To Defamation Lawsuit
A journalist with a yen for investigative budget reporting penned a piece for his local newspaper on taxpayer costs associated with low-income, pro se litigants who get court fees waived. In it, the reporter bemoaned “continued filing of duplicative, vexations, or frivolous appeals, mandamus petitions or motions.”
Furious over the characterization, and ignoring the irony, one of the featured filers sued the reporter, paper, and its publishers for libel.
The claim remonstrates:
“They omitted factual references regarding the status of eight pending cases that had resulted in three judgments in the plaintiff’s favor. The defendants’ publication created a false light and defamatory misrepresentation of the plaintiff with the intent to manipulate third parties’s opinion of him.”
Is it Defamatory to call a lawsuit “Frivolous”?
Does the plaintiff have a solid defamation case?
In a word, “No.” And a judge confirmed as much.
To win a defamation lawsuit in the United States, plaintiffs must prove more than a misstatement of fact; they must also prove harm, in addition to negligence or intent.
Opinion is not Defamatory
Opinion is not defamatory under United States law. For a statement to be deemed legally libelous or slanderous, it must:
- Be a significant false statement of fact;
- Have caused the plaintiff material or reputational harm; and
- Have been distributed, published or broadcast with reckless disregard for the truth or actual malice.
The judge, though, didn’t delve into the obscure depths of case law to rule in this case. Why? Because the statement with which Traylor took issue was “pure opinion” and, therefore, legal. In the language of the opinion (via source):
“The…defendants also argue that describing [the] lawsuit as frivolous is an expression of opinion and not a statement of fact giving rise to a defamation claim.
“Although an opinion may appear to be in the form of a factual statement, it remains an opinion if it is clear from the context that the maker is not intending to assert another objective fact but only his personal comment on the facts which he stated.”
Further Reading and Defamation Lawyer Contact Information
Defamation is misunderstood. People mistakenly think that a simple typo or insignificant misstatement qualifies as slander or libel. But defamation law is much more nuanced.
If you think you have been defamed and want to explore legal avenues, get in touch today.