Employee Deamation Case Paper

In the case at hand, an employee of a high profile celebrity has identified a letter from the celebrity listing the employee and several other employees as “no longer in my employment. If I let an employee go, it’s because either their work or their personal habits are not acceptable to me” (Walsh, 2013, p. 164). The employee goes on to identify she had never used the employer as a reference and such information would be prejudicial, therefore the employee sued the celebrity. This case has a litany of issues relating to employer relationships and the amount of information, and what type of information an employee can consider to be privileged. Indeed, when an employee is hired by an employer there are several types of information
Obviously, the celebrity publishing a letter with employees names and the detailed inference that they were let go for personal reasons or inability to perform duties could be deemed as defaming the character of the employees, specifically in the sense that the employee in question never used her as a reference. The employee is attempting to sue the employer, who is a high profile celebrity for defamation of character. “In the vast majority of US jurisdictions, the elements of a successful defamation claim are: (1) publication to a third party (2) of a defamatory statement (3) “of and concerning” the plaintiff (4) that is false, (5) published with requisite degree of fault (negligence or actual malice), and (6) damage to the plaintiff’s reputation (which, in some instances, can be presumed). Also, (7) the publication at issue must not be subject to any privilege, such as a “fair report” of an official governmental proceeding. (8) Furthermore, to recover punitive damages based on a publication that addresses a matter of public concern, the plaintiff must show clear and convincing evidence of actual malice, which in the defamation context means knowledge that the statement is, or probably is, false” (Kelley & Arnsberg, 2014, p. 8). All aspects of the case seemed to be reached, but the question relating to if it is false
This employee’s information was assumable false from the employee’s standpoint, published in a letter for all to see and such publication can assume to only have one purpose which was to maliciously affect future employment. I would have to find at a minimum there was enough evidence to support a trial and allow a jury of peers to decide the level of malice and punitive damages occurred from such a defaming