if it can’t be backed up, if it’s not a true statement, it’s slander. surfing the web = security risk???
the fact that such a statement would be made and yet he still has not been fired, or let go… make sense???
they guys got a case. plain and simple.
But not for reading the Straight Dope. I have been consulting at a company and in the last month or so there has been some friction between myself and a female coworker (who is an employee of the company). I didn’t think it was a big thing, just the pressure of the job, but apparently she didn’t see it that way. This past Tuesday we had a disagreement that led to a very mild exchange of words. She informed me that she didn’t have to argue with me, she would get me fired. Today just before the end of the day, the boss who had hired me came by my cube and told me that the woman coworker refused to work with me so I am not to come back on Monday.
This is always a possibility for a consultant. Some places you consult for don’t tolerate any kind of problems between employees and consultants. The first problem and they tell the consultant not to come back. But I have been consulting for 7 years and this is the first time it has happened to me. I have consulted at places where there was so much bickering between the development team that no one was even talking to each other except for job related reasons and yet no one got fired.
Oh well, c’est la vie.
Call me strange, but I think this is a really good idea. You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, and writing a letter in which you calmly explain what happened in your own words does sound better than rushing in and suing your former employer, which would make your future employer a little nervous that you may sue her in the future as well.
I won’t beat this to death any longer. The statement by the supervisor that Metroshane is a “security-risk” would not be slander because it is an opinion, not a statement of fact, and, as I pointed out in my first posting, “To the extent the co-employee offered an opinion about Metroshane, that can’t be slander (in general, opinions are not ‘true’ or ‘false’).” I can, if someone really thinks it necessary, engage in a detailed discussion of ‘opinion’ as slander, but since it isn’t applicable to the OP, it will have to occur elsewhere.
SOULSLING says:
This does not follow. If we accept Doug’s definition of “slander” as “a)a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (b)[made in] an unprivileged communication; © [with] fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of harm or the existence of special harm” then Metroshane was not “slandered.” Why? Because the communication is arguably privileged as a internal business communication; because referring to him as a “security risk” instead of “a misapprpriator of company time/time waster” (sorry, Metroshane) is hardly "fault amounting to negligence; and because the statement, made by one company employee to another in the context of transferring/promoting a company employer, would not be actionable. Therefore, we do not have (b),©, or (d), and (a) is probably pretty shaky as well. Under this definition, it is not enough that a statement be “false” to make it “slanderous.”
The fact that you have been through this before does not mean that you were correct to use a particular legal term (slander), which has a very specific meaning under the law, in a way not justified by the facts or the terms legal definition. Crucial to this analysis is the fact that you were not using “slander” in a general, lay-person’s sense, which would not invite correction; instead you were obviously using it in its legal sense – Metroshane’s employer broke the law, you opined, and slandered him. We don’t know enough under the facts as given to assay the first opinion (though it seems unlikely), but the second is, quite simply, incorrect.
That’s not what Doug said. He said you were incorrect to declare that Metroshane has been slandered. Which you were. You may be assuming that every jurisdiction follows the law in your jurisdiction (California?), but this is never a safe assumption to make. Metroshane has declared that he is in Texas, and the law is almost certainly very different, and much more conservative, there than it is in California. For example, the relaying of information including misuse of company time or equipment would be perfectly legitimate in my jurisdiction, regardless of whether the information was provided internally (within the same company) or externally (to a different prospective employer). The “name, rank, and serial number” response that you allege is the only legal response to a reference check may be true in your jurisdiction, but it isn’t true in mine and it’s probably not true in Metroshane’s, which is why you shouldn’t make overly-broad statements about what the law “is.” What the law “is” varies from state to state.
Therefore, here you are wrong:
quote:
Assuming the existence of a privacy law that precludes an employer from discussing the contents of your employment file, and assuming that the employer violated that law, that would not be slander, which is a different type of unlawful action. Therefore, as I correctly pointed out in my previous post, the assertion by soulsling that the issue was one of slander was incorrect.
The point is, you do not know what his “rights” are because you do not know what the law is in his jurisdiction. You stated, unequivocally, that his employer broke the law, but you do not know that for a fact. You stated, unequivocally, that his employer slandered him, but you do not know that for a fact, either. Metroshane might well believe you knew what you were talking about, rely on your advice, swagger in to his employer talking about how they “slandered” him and how he’s demanding his “rights” and find himself in a worse situation than he’s in right now – i.e., fired.
No one here has said that slander is not illegal. What Doug said – correctly – is that the actions in this case in all likelihood do not rise to the level of slander. That’s a big difference.
Well, I hate to second Doug and make you feel that you are being piled on, but you were wrong. There is not enough information to determine whether Metroshade’s employer slandered him, or what his rights would be. I doubt very much that Doug responded to “prove his lawyerly worth.” The fact is that many lawyers spend a lot of time counteracting bad advice given by laypeople who really don’t know what they’re talking about. I see no reason why you have to ascribe Doug’s motivation as “proving himself” when it seems much more likely that he was simply trying to make sure that Metroshane did not make a bad situation worse by undertaking certain steps in reliance upon your erroneous statements regarding his rights and remedies. In other words, you didn’t (and don’t) know what you’re talking about so far as Texas law is concerned, and Doug was not out of line in pointing that out.
thank you jodih.
perhaps it has to do with tact.
you are correct.
i see where i was wrong.
and my apologies. i asked another attorney on Friday evening, and she informed me differently then someone from the same firm i had asked earlier, the terms for deciding what was slander were so sketchy, that Metro does have a good case if he’s telling the truth about it all, even within his company, but no, i am wrong as to the fact that it is illegal for his supervisor to do what he did (were it in NY), instead, she mentioned as well that he still has civil right’s issues that were violated nonetheless because he is still working for the company that is alleging he is a security risk. According to her though, if it’s not a backed up statement, it can be seen as slander according to the law. She’s a criminal lawyer, so i don’t know what that means for Texas since she’s practicing in NY, though i suppose also i wrongly assumed the laws couldn’t be all that different from state to state.
No problem, Soulsling; it’s just that I doubted very much that Doug (based on what I know of him on this Message Board) would have waded in just to throw his weight around. Group hug!
Hey Metro!!! What’s happening?
Oh, we can’t let him post anymore. We heard he’s a security risk.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I’m kidding! Geez, touchy, are we?
Well, I’m going to have to jump to soulsling’s defense on this one.
It is a question of tact. While it is good for DSYoungEsq to correct what he views as a misreading of the law, his posts do tend to have an arrogant “I’m an attorney and you’re not” tone.
Example:
Why was that sentence necessary?
It would be enough to point out the error in a more diplomatic way. DSYoungEsq generally gives pretty sound legal advice 'round here, but I sure wish he would stop and read his posts a couple of times before hitting that ‘submit’ button.
Speaking of reading posts more carefully, I notice that I, too, missed the fact that the new job was with another department in the same company, which nullifies some of what I posted earlier. Doesn’t sound to me like there’s a case there, but I would still advise running the facts past an actual Texas lawyer to be sure.
spoke-, thanx and all, but i believe jodih said enough. i was never intent upon defending myself against insult, there was none. some people just lack a tact for saying things clearly. DSYoungEsqs earlier posts keep with his character. It is possible to let emotion interfere with logic, (no vulcan jokes here please), and it appears from my view that is what happened, jodih explained things tactfully, logically, and without a blaring of emotion to interfere with the subject. i understood clearly at that point, (became enlightened if you will), and have and had no negative feelings towards DS.
no reason to twist this thread into argument over tact and etiquette.
funny Manhattan, i was thinking that line just before i read it.
seriously, what’s the deal metroshane?
no computer to check out the dope with anymore?
Thanks for your imput guys. it’s funny, i’d decided not to submit this thread and “x”'d out of my browser,but evidentally it went thru anyway. here’s the latest scoop.
i went to my vp. he did research on the case and found out that not only was i not a security risk, but that i’m damn good employee. so he’s looking at getting me an equal or better job, but it may take a few months.
why did the coworker do this? because this was a 21,000/year raise!!! that would put me almost on her level. she didn’t get in trouble b/c she has 27 yrs with the company and knows lots of people. Coincidentally , i’m not the first person she’s done this to.
texas is a right to work state,but they did something curious ,they came to me about the legal issue b4 i had a chance. were they trying to head me off at the pass???
i’ll let you know how this turns out
by the way, i wasn’t wasting company time, i work in a call center where we will have to wait up to 5-10 minutes for a call to come in. and i was posting during a down time (can’t stare at my cubicle forever) so the only moral rule i was breaking was getting in the way of a supervisors micromanaging skills.
Congratulations on the new progress!
If it’s any consolation, when people like the evil co-worker do things like this, it is noticed. One of the jobs of management is to present a consistant image, but you can bet that behind the scenes when someone does something like what you’ve described they get theirs.