Employee Rights Case
To begin with, one must review the state law to determine both employer and employee rights. This case occurred in Ohio, and after reviewing the state law, it is determined that employers are in fact protected from defamation lawsuits unless one of the following occurs. First, the protection is available unless the employer intentionally discloses information knowing that it was false before the disclosure. Second, if the employer deliberately intended to mislead the prospective employer by disclosing false information, which was conducted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, the protection is lost. Next, to dissect the facts of this case, Mr. Black was an employee of Usher Transport, in which was a previous employer that was contacted when
…show more content…
He claimed that the report contained three errors regarding his previous employment with Usher. One, that he had been arrested while on the job. Two, that he had had an unauthorized passenger in his truck, and three, that he had tested positive for a controlled substance in the last three years.
At the same time, when speaking of intentionally disclosing false information, the statement that the driver had previously tested positive for a controlled substance, was false because the relevant personnel file referred to an “inconclusive” rather than a “positive” test result.
The court granted summary judgment to the employer on the truck driver’s defamation claim. Under Ohio law, employers are shielded from defamation suits unless they lose their qualified privilege by disclosing particular information with the knowledge that it was false, with the deliberate intent to mislead the prospective employer, or another person, in bad faith, or with malicious purpose. Regarding knowing falsity, the court observed that at least one statement – the claim that the driver had previously tested positive for a controlled substance – was false because the relevant personnel file referred to an “inconclusive” rather than a “positive” test result. The truth regarding the alleged arrest was less clear. But
He claimed that the report contained three errors regarding his previous employment with Usher. One, that he had been arrested while on the job. Two, that he had had an unauthorized passenger in his truck, and three, that he had tested positive for a controlled substance in the last three years.
At the same time, when speaking of intentionally disclosing false information, the statement that the driver had previously tested positive for a controlled substance, was false because the relevant personnel file referred to an “inconclusive” rather than a “positive” test result.
The court granted summary judgment to the employer on the truck driver’s defamation claim. Under Ohio law, employers are shielded from defamation suits unless they lose their qualified privilege by disclosing particular information with the knowledge that it was false, with the deliberate intent to mislead the prospective employer, or another person, in bad faith, or with malicious purpose. Regarding knowing falsity, the court observed that at least one statement – the claim that the driver had previously tested positive for a controlled substance – was false because the relevant personnel file referred to an “inconclusive” rather than a “positive” test result. The truth regarding the alleged arrest was less clear. But