A Brief Summary Of The Court Case Of Ross Vs. Davis

In the case of Ross vs Davis, I would certainly rule in favor of Davis. Davis decided to leave her career by choice a full year prior to Ross’s disclaimer. When person leaves a job or career, a written notice is usually given to the employer. It appears in this case, someone in the Human Resource Department, or another unknown source had left out some of the information that should have been directed to Diana Ross about Gail Davis decision to resign from the job. Being in the profession that Diana Ross was in, it is very hard to keep up with some companies call the small things. When Gail Davis decided to resign, everyone that may have been impacted by this decision, should have been notified. Many companies have policy that will indicate
Every name that was on the list should have been checked to see why they left or what may have caused them to leave the company before they were released. Gail Davis should have won the case against Diana Ross due to defamation of character (Walsh, 2013). Defamation of character is when intentional information, rather it is written or spoken with the intent to harm a person’s reputation of character, or bring about opinions or feelings against a person. Defamation of character is against the law and should be challenged in the courts today. Under the Wisconsin law, defamation of character requires proof of three elements: 1) aa false statement that is given by an individual or company 2) that the speech was communicated by speech, conduct, or writing to a person defamed: and 3) the communication was unprivileged to others and intended to harm plantiff;s reputation so as to lower him or her in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or having any dealings with the plaintiff ( Business Torts Reporter,
Ross. Since Gail had been gone from the company for more than one year, the letter should have been relevant to her voluntary departure. In addition to the fact that Gail’s was written on the letter, proves that Ms. Ross was not aware of how long it had been. The timeline in this case should be the main focus in the plaintiff’s argument. If the statements like these are written or stated, they should be made when the employee is no longer with the company. The way this letter was written indicates that the employees listed had very poor work ethics and would not be great candidates for hire. The statue that Diana Ross has could be damaging to these groups of people. She specifically stated if she was listed as reference to please contact her. In most cases when seeking new employment, the application does ask about the previous employers and their contact information. Although the situation would have been much better if she had took the time to speak of the employees in a favorable manner, but if wrong information is released then it would be