Did warning to workers defame fired employee?
Filed under: Communication, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Security and law
An employee is fired after stealing from the company. To warn employees about the consequences of that behavior, his manager e-mails the rest of the staff explaining the termination. Is the company guilty of libel?
Read the facts of the real-life case and decide: Who won?
The facts:
During an audit of travel expense reports, the company discovered that one employee had requested a total of $1,622 more than he actually spent and pocketed the difference. The employee admitted that he often filled out expense reports before he traveled, estimating how much money he would spend — which was against company policy. He also acknowledged making other “mistakes” that led to him being overpaid. He was fired.
His manager sent an e-mail to the rest of his staff telling them about the termination. The e-mail stated the employee “was not in compliance with our travel and expenses policies,” and reminded employees that “compliance with company policies is not optional.”
After he found out about the e-mail, the employee sued the company for libel.
The employer said:
Everything the manager said in the e-mail was true. There was no intention to defame the employee’s character, just to remind employees that the company takes its policies seriously.
Who won the case?
Answer: The employee.
Why: At first, a court ruled for the company. The reason: The e-mail wasn’t false. The employee was fired for violating the company’s travel and entertainment policy, a fact that was not disputed.
But the decision was overturned on appeal. Even if a written statement is true, it can still be considered libel if it was written with malicious intent. In this case, the court agreed with the employee that the e-mail was meant to single him out and humiliate him.
According to the judge, the company had no legitimate business need to identify the fired employee by name.
Cite: Noonan v. Staples, Inc.
Comments
2 Comments on Did warning to workers defame fired employee?
-
Andy Arnold on
Wed, 25th Feb 2009 1:15 pm
-
Judy Buckley on
Tue, 3rd Mar 2009 4:22 pm
Your account is a bit misleading, as such a minimal summary of a fairly lengthy opinion is bound to be. Folks interested can read for themselves. http://tinyurl.com/b5bkvu
What the court said was that there were questions of fact and that a jury should decide the case. Allowing an employee his 7th Amendment right to a jury trial is not really a victory but merely recognition of a pre-existing right. The jury will decide whether the company had a legitimate business justification and whether the email was actually sent with malice. The company may still prevail. The case is not over. The employee has not won the case…yet. I would not bet on the employee, but 12 jurors will be in a better position than anyone to pass judgment on credibility and other questions of fact.
Andy: Thanks for the link – interesting reading. I love the court’s phrase that Noonan “unblushingly contends” his expense account variances were the result of inattentiveness or sloppiness on his part, not attempts to pad the account. I wonder why the ultimate amount is only $1,622 when the auditors found “dozens” of mistakes – the incorrect entry on the McDonald’s meal alone is over $1,100 and there were apparently many items exactly $100 less than what he entered. I agree – this does not look good for Noonan, to say the least. I hope the jury sees it that way. When will people realize that this kind of padding of expense accounts is the same as stealing? I do agree the email wasn’t handled correctly, though. Sending it to people not involved with expense accounts and mentioning the former employee’s name – not good. But with no provable malice, I would hope Staples will prevail (and slap that manager on the wrist!) I see he was trying to make an example – but that can be done without naming names. I wonder if there is a scramble among all the “other” who supposedly have padded accounts to get those corrected before they get found out.
