Did warning to workers defame fired employee?
February 25, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Communication, In this week's e-newsletter, Information security, Latest News & Views, Travel and entertainment
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.
FinanceTechNews.com delivers the latest Finance news once a week to the inboxes of over 150,000 Finance professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to FinanceTechNews!
Tags: defamation, e-mail, libel, termination, theft
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
Hmmm, so if the boss would not have mentioned the employee’s name, it would have been okay. It still think it was ridiculous for the employee to win this case. Can the employer sue the employee for the over payment, interest, and court costs?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
There must be more information that came out in court that showed “malicious intent.” Further, the judge is just plain wrong that the compnay had no legitimate business need to identify the employee by name.
For many companies, naming the employee is not an issue because everyone knows the employee who got fired. When an employee leaves suddenly it has a major impact on the rest of the employees. Generally, the leaving employee has their say to their co-workers which can lead to further disruption in the workplace. The employees that continue to work may be hit up for money by the ex- employee or maybe had lent the ex-employee money before he was canned. Certainly the business dealings of the employees with each other is not a business need, however, the emotional fallout, the loss of productivity, and the potential for higher turnover IS a business need.
The employer only stated the reason for termination, “not in compliance with the travel and expenses policies.” This certainly sounds like a business need to re-affirm the standards and educate the staff on the consequences. Leaving the reason for termination up to the rumor mill or for the ex-employee to frame for the staff makes no sense at all.
So the employer can tell another employer that this man is a thief and not be sued for libel, but if the employer tries to look out for its current employees to make them aware of “travel and expenses policies” and this employee’s cavalier attitude towards them, they lose?
This guy also travelled. There may be customers or other partners that will be affected by this person’s departure. So, the company cannot inform them that he was “not in compliance with the travel and expenses policies” and was terminated while he is free to tell them anything? This guy is free to demean the company and steal clients?
What BUSINESS NEED does this judge need to see?
March 24th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I believe this story was shown here earlier and they named the company and the ex-employee’s name. It looked like the court was leaning toward the plaintiff not being able to prove malice on the part of the employer. I’m sorry to see this turn out this way. I thought the guy had a lot of nerve to go to court on this when he was basically stealing from his company. He made a lot of “mistakes” in his own favor and didn’t bother to correct them when it was apparent his figures were wrong. The earlier article said he had estimated expenses (against company policy) and when the actual expenses were less, he didn’t put in a revised expense claim. The earlier article also mentioned a reimbursement for a McDonald’s meal that came to around $1100, instead of $11. The ex-employee supposedly didn’t realize the error when that larger amount was deposited to his checking. Given the other examples given earlier, I was surprised to see the total was $1,622. Seemed it should have been a lot more. Somebody needs a brush up on his ethics here!