A former employee writes a message online bashing the company and accusing management of condoning illegal behavior — do you have any right to protect the company’s reputation? Probably not, according to this recent court case:

The owner of a company operating several restaurant franchises in New Jersey was profiled in a local newspaper. The article was posted on the paper’s Web site.

In response to an interview question, the owner said that he treats employees “with dignity and respect.” That statement was met with some disagreement from a former employee’s father.

He was representing his daughter in a court case alleging sexual harassment by the managers at the restaurant where she worked. He left a comment under the article discussing the pending case and accusing the owner of condoning sexual harassment.

The comment also said that “the man and his rhetoric are repugnant and fly in the face of facts,” and speculated that any women currently working for the company were being harassed as well.

The company sued the commenter for defamation. Was it successful?

No, the judge threw out the case. According to a previous New Jersey Supreme Court ruling, statements of opinion are immune from defamation claims. The portions of the comment attacking the owner were merely an expression of the commenter’s opinions.

Also, the statements about the pending lawsuit were not defamatory because they were truthful and a “matter of public interest.”

Protect your reputation

The lesson for companies: Once something negative appears online, it’s tough — if not impossible — to make it go away. In this day and age, any disgruntled employee, former employee or customer can do a fair amount of damage with a few keystrokes and a click of the mouse.

The best solution, of course, is to never give anyone a reason to complain — but anyone in HR knows that’s impossible. Here are some more realistic ways to prevent serious damage:

• Work to maintain a positive Web presence (for example, by having employees contribute to blogs and discussion forums).
• Encourage managers to listen to complaints and seek out constructive criticism. Often, employees seek alternate ways to complain because they feel they have no other place to go.
• Write computer policies that prohibit employees from writing derogatory comments about the company and its employees.
• Consider having some or all employees sign confidentiality agreements that ban defamation, or include non-defamation provisions in separation agreements.

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.

A former Rite Aid employee sued the company and ChoicePoint, an online employee screening service, after he was fired for allegedly stealing more than $7,000 worth of cash and merchandise.

After discovering the loss, the company suspected the employee was to blame. He was fired, and information about the theft was sent to ChoicePoint.

But the employee claimed he was innocent, and the company failed to properly investigate. He said he was “aggressively questioned” by a Rite Aid official and coerced into signing a statement admitting he stole the money.

He was later awarded unemployment compensation because the company didn’t prove he was guilty. After failing to get other retail jobs because of his now-spotty background check, he sued for defamation.

The company tried to have the case thrown out, claiming it couldn’t be liable because it believed the report it sent ChoicePoint was true. But the judge didn’t buy it, because the company failed to show its investigation reached any legitimate conclusions.

The court let the case move forward, ruling the store knowingly submitted an unfounded accusation to the database. Now the company will have to settle or face a costly jury trial.

Cite: Prendergrass v. ChoicePoint

Many companies set up internal message boards on their intranets as a way for employees to communicate. Much like the traditional cork message boards in break rooms, they give people a way to share information with co-workers in a public place.

But some lawyers warn employers about the potential problems with all that electronic sharing. Possible areas of liability include:

1. Harassing or defamatory comments on the message board
2. The sharing of confidential information with unauthorized co-workers, and
3. Issues related to union solicitation.

Avoid problems

If your company uses an internal message board, you can help keep legal issues at bay by having a policy on what is acceptable to post (i.e., nothing discriminatory, harassing, confidential, etc.). Employees should be reminded of the policy each time they log on to the system.

Also, the content should be monitored regularly, and complaints about the use of the board must be addressed effectively.

Read more about internal company message boards in the National Law Journal.