Employment Defamation: If you have experienced defamation while at work from a coworker or supervisor, our Employment Lawyers can help. Essentially, defamation occurs when an employer makes a knowingly false statement about you outside of your presence and the statement(s) injures your professional or personal reputation. Employers always assert that the statements were made during the course of your employment and thus it is not liable. Also, employers often use truth as a defense to defamation.
We begin our analysis with a brief review of the common-law tort of defamation. A defamatory statement is defined as a communication that tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him… . (Internal quotation marks omitted.) QSP, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 256 Conn. 343, 356, 773 A.2d 906 (2001), quoting 3 Restatement (Second), Torts § 559, p. 156 (1977).To establish a prima facie case of defamation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) the defendant published a defamatory statement; (2) the defamatory statement identified the plaintiff to a third person; (3) the defamatory statement was published to a third person; and (4) the plaintiff’s reputation suffered injury as a result of the statement. See QSP, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, at 356, 773 A.2d 906; 3 Restatement (Second), supra, § § 558, 580B, at pp. 155, 221-22; W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts (5th Ed.1984) § 113, p. 802. With each publication by the defendant, a new cause of action arises. See W. Prosser & W. Keeton, supra, § 113, at pp. 799-800. As a general rule, however, no action for defamation exists if the defendant publishes the defamatory statements to only the plaintiff, and the plaintiff subsequently disseminates the statements to a third person. See 3 Restatement (Second), supra, § 577, comment (m), p. 206; W. Prosser & W. Keeton, supra, § 113, at p. 802.Cweklinsky v. Mobil Chem. Co., 267 Conn. 210, 218, 837 A.2d 759, 764 (2004)
To succeed on a defamation claim in Connecticut, a plaintiff must show that: (1) defendant made a false statement about plaintiff; (2) defendant published the statement to a third party; and (3) plaintiff’s reputation was thereby injured. See Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 234 Conn. 1, 662 A.2d 89, 103 (1995).
Several courts in other states, however, have carved out an exception to that rule in the context of employment. These courts have concluded that publication to the third party by the defamed former employee, or self-publication, may satisfy the publication requirement because the person effectively is compelled to publish the defamatory statement to prospective employers when the person is asked why he or she left his or her former employment. See, e.g., Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 389 N.W.2d 876, 886-87 (Minn.1986). These courts reason that it is fair to hold an employer liable for compelled self-publication because it is reasonably foreseeable that the employee, in seeking new employment, will inevitably be asked why he or she left his or her former employment. See id.
Connecticut recognizes that intra-corporate communications may satisfy the publication element of a defamation claim. Id. Although otherwise defamatory intra-corporate statements are usually privileged and thus an employer is protected from liability, malice on the part of an employer-defendant in making such a communication defeats the privilege. See Gaudio v. Griffin Health Servs. Corp., 249 Conn. 523, 733 A.2d 197, 210“11 (1999); Torosyan, 662 A.2d at 103“04; see also Bleich v. Ortiz, 196 Conn. 498, 493 A.2d 236, 240 (1985).
Some states have also expanded the publication element of a defamation claim in the employment context by adopting the doctrine of compelled self-publication defamation. See, e.g., Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336, 1343“45 (Colo.1988) (en banc ); Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 389 N.W.2d 876, 888 (Minn.1986); Belcher v. Little, 315 N.W.2d 734, 737“38 (Iowa 1982); McKinney v. County of Santa Clara, 110 Cal.App.3d 787, 168 Cal.Rptr. 89, 93“95 (1980). This doctrine allows compelled self-publication by a plaintiff-employee to substitute for the traditional requirement of publication by a defendant-employer in cases where the compulsion is reasonably foreseeable. See Lewis, 389 N.W.2d at 888.Cweklinsky v. Mobil Chem. Co., 364 F.3d 68, 73 (2d Cir. 2004)
- Employment Counseling
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Age Discrimination
- Severance Negotiations
- Sexual Harassment & Gender Discrimination
- Connecticut Executive Compensation Lawyers
- Racial Discrimination
- Wage and Overtime Claims
- Sexual Orientation and Transgender (LGBTQ)
- Whistleblower Protection
- Family Medical Leave Act
- Pension and Disability Benefits Litigation
- Employment Defamation
- Religious Discrimination
- Noncompetition and Nonsolicitation Agreements
- Wrongful Termination
- Retaliation Discrimination
Mark and his team at Carey & Associates are incredibly knowledgeable about Employment Law and have walked me through every step of the way. Their approach and guidance has been extremely effective in dealing with my case. They instill a sense of confidence by laying out the facts, caselaw, and risk assessment to help make well informed decisions. I would highly recommend them to anyone looking for an Employment Attorney.