some people are in a load of shit only they dont know it yet while the year since my "resignation" aug 20th 2009 as been not without its moments
this second year may well see me rise from the ashes you just have to love the law
people seem to think HR has the gospel and the last word but alas many managers dont know the law
privacy commersioner and human rights commisioner reports will give added wieght to my apllication HR appear to b...e seriously remiss with their advice
good chance i may become a landlord soon as well can you guess how
cause its not the begining of the end its just the end of the beginning
bugger im going to have to file another load of paperwork i might as well go for a law degree get a student loan at 58 what a hoot
DEFAMATION
Defamation is an injury to the reputation or character of someone resulting from the false statements or actions of another. Defamation is a false attack on your good name. Your good name is regarded as a proprietary interest, not a personal interest. Defamation is an improper and unlawful attack against your proprietary right to your good name, your reputation.
Defamation is a general term for the false attack on your character or reputation through either libel or slander. Libel is a term describing visual defamation, usually in the form of lies in print, oh bugger or misleading or deceptive photographs.
Libel exposes or subjects you to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or causes you to be shunned or avoided, or injures you in your occupation.
Slander is a term describing defamation that you hear, not see, usually in the form of someone talking trash about you or spreading or repeating lies and unfounded rumor.
Slander is an oral statement that tends to injur you in respect to your office, profession, trade or business. The statement or statements generally suggest that you lack integrity, honesty, incompetence, or that you possess other reprehensible personal characteristics.
Defamation is an important concept to know for anyone working
. Why? Because you may be an at-will employee subject to being terminated at any time for no reason, but if your employer, or his or her representative defames you, you will be entitled to sue for that attack on your reputation or character, even though you have no contractual right to your job and you would not be able to sue for wrongful termination based on a contractual theory. Furthermore, if the false attack on your character or reputation causes you to be terminated as a result you can sue for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, which will entitle you to seek damages far greater than the usual wrongful termination case based on contract. This means that if you were terminated as a result of the defamatory statement, you then will have the right to sue for wrongful termination in violation of public policy even though you were an at-will employee and you could have otherwise been terminated for no reason at any time.
A legal claim based on defamation entitles the victim to recover against the defamer for his or her emotional damages. In addition, the victim will be entitled to sue for punitive, or punishment, damages.
There are other critical differences which make defamation important to be aware of. You can prove defamation on your word alone, even though it is always better to have some confirming evidence. ( a letter, a memo, an e-mail, statements from fellow employees confirming the defamatory remarks about you, etc.) You can testify in court as to statements made by others about you. This means that the "hearsay" rule does not apply to the testimony in court which repeats defamatory statements.made out of court.
You do not have to prove damages in defamation cases. Damages are presumed. This means that you do not have to testify that you were emotionally destroyed or had to see a psychiatrist or other mental health specialist or doctor.
The defamatory comments do not have to be stated (this is described as being "published") to someone outside the company. Purely internal memorandums or comments that falsely attack you can be defamatory. If another employee heard or read the comment then the defamatory statement has been "published" sufficiently to support a charge of defamation.
Each repetition of a defamatory remark is a new injury. This means that you can obtain damages for each time the defamatory statement is repeated.
dam you gotta love the law and the privacy act
You may even be entitled to receive damages every time you repeat the defamatory comment to someone else! Yes, if it was reasonably foreseeable that you would feel compeled to repeat or explain the defamatory comment, your employer may be liable each time you repeated his comment!
For example, suppose your employer charges you with stealing or lack of loyalty to the company and you are terminated as a result of those false accusations. Suddenly you find yourself unemployed and looking for a new job. You feel compelled at interviews to explain why you can't offer a good referral from your prior employer.
"He said I stole from him, or he alleged that I wasn't loyal to the company."
Under these circumstances your repeated explanation of the defamatory comments may itself be defamation that you are entitled to be compensated for!
Probably the most important situation involving qualified privileges are those where your work is being evaluated in performance reviews or other evaluations of your conduct in the workplace.
Can your employer defame you in a performance review without being liable to you for defamation? Maybe. Maybe not. An employer loses his or her qualified privilege to make defamatory comments in critiquing you or your work when the defamatory statement is made,
Without a good faith belief in the truth of the statement; or
they admitted micro management twice and failed to treat me in good faith during the disciplainary process TICK
Without reasonable grounds for believing the truth of the statement; or
they where fully aware that the micromanagment of me was different to the way they managed other staff TICK
With a motive or willingness to vex, harass, annoy, or unjure you; or
they knew it was winding me up as i got so angry they sent me home rather than let me go back on queue TICK
Is exaggerated or not fully or fairly stated; or
micro managing is work place bullying TICK
The result of a reckless investigation; or
reckless they lied from the start i will give you an example in some future posts TICK
they told so many lies they couldnt keep track of them then compounded them by putting them in the minutes of the disciplinary meetings as a true and correct record
DOUBLE TICK
Motivated by hatred or ill will towards you.
it is my firm belief that michelle young did not like me challenging her when she attempted to chastise me for misdeameanors admitted to ,and resolved to my managers satisfaction and i politely refused tobe told off a second time for the same error
michelle and i have a appiontment in court in the coming months or years however long it takes except they will be a paradim shift in the balance of power
Examples of statements that have been determined by the courts to be defamatory are those that involve; allegations of embezzlement, lying, irresponsibility, lack of integrity, dishonesty, laziness, incompetence, not being eligible for rehire, insubordination, being a traitor to the company, or having committed a criminal act.
they not me lied and showed a lack of integrity
As you can see, there are numerous situations where the employer risks losing his or her qualified privilege and if the privilege is lost, any publication of the false comment becomes defamatory and you will be entitled to damages for the injury to your reputation.
Other factors that may be considered in making a finding of defamation are whether the person making the statement knows or believes the statement to be true; whether the statement is the result of anger, jealousy, resentment, grudges, quarrels, ill-will or other conflict between you and the person making the statement.
oh fucking dear are they in it up to thier fucking necks
In order to be defamatory the statement must be, of course, false. The employer has the burden of proving that the statement is not false In other words, the employer has to prove that the statement was true. The statement must also seem to state a fact, or that it is based on fact, rather than an opinion, or based only on opinion.
well fuck me that won,t be hard now will it they micromanage me out they admitt to it at the same time they are having a two day boot camp because the sites performance is well under par i think i will supeana all that attended yes that would be best
A statement made as a statement of opinion, rather than as an allegation of fact, is not defamatory.
Are statements made about you by a supervisor that are placed in your personnel file possibly libelous? If the statements are statements of opinion, rather than false statements of fact, they are not potentially libelous. The question to ask is, does the statement of opinion suggest that it is base on fact or is provable as a fact? Statements that may support a claim of libel are; false accusations of criminal conduct, lackof integrity, dishonesty, incompetence, or reprehensible personal moral behavior. For example, if you found in your personnel file, a false statement accusing you of suspected theft, such a statement would be libelous. Such a statement would imply to the average reader that it is confirmable as a fact, and is not just an unfounded personal opinion.
Be aware that a defamatory statement in your personnel file defames for as long as the statement exists in your file. What does this mean? This means that defamatory statements made 5, 10, or even 15 years ago, and placed in your personnel file may be subject to a lawsuit if they are still there in your file "attacking" your reputation or your good name up to the present time. The statute do not protect the employer on "old" statements that are still around to be seen or heard.
If you are an employee or supervisor-employee and you are accused of engaging in sexual harassment or some other offensive activity and the fact of the accusation is "published," your employer may be liable to you for defamation. If the employer notified other employees or other parties of the allegations against you , such conduct by the employer may be defamatory against you.
As we mentioned earlier, an interesting situation that sometimes occurs is when the publication of the slanderous information is made by the employee being slandered, rather than by the employer. This is described as "self publication." For example, suppose your boss brings you into his or her office and informs you that you are no longer needed because he suspects that you are a drinker and he states that he does not regard you as competent in your work.. Suppose further that your employer makes these comments only to your direct manager, and repeats these comments to no one outside the company. Suppose after your boss informs you of these "facts," you feel compelled to tell your fellow employees what has happened to you. After all, everyone wants to know. Under these circumstances the employee himself publishes the defamatory statements.
Is your employer liable for slander when you have repeated and published the statements? Your employer will be liable where he or she knew or should have known that someone facing circumstances similar to yours would have been compelled to "self-publish" the defamatory statements, and the court asks is, was there nothing done to prevent it.
they fucked up big time with that one
The question self-publication foreseeable under the circumstances? If so, the employer may be liable. The difficulty with "self-publication" defamation for the employee is that the employee has the burden of proving that he or she was psychologically compelled to repeat or publish the defamatory statements.
well they did send me to a counsellor how convient
What if you leave your old job for a new one and find out that your ex-employer has been saying bad things about you? Bad-mouthing an employee, or a former employee is known as "blacklisting" and is potentially illegal as a form of defamation just described..
pretty much the same as putting do not re-employ on my file you think
if you read my previous blogs you may find that some have dug a big hole for themselves
i m off to my pro-bono lawyer friends for a chat
No comments:
Post a Comment