Reasons for Termination Embellished, Causing Difficulty Finding a New Job

[Bill Munny]

My question involves defamation in the state of: Colorado.

I was fired from a job last year, not for job performance but because of "personal behavior" outside of the workplace. Though I had perhaps behaved inappropriately, I had not broken any laws. The issue isn't my firing, but the fact that the computer "guru" at the workplace used the workplace website as well as other social media to broadcast and even embellish (to the point of making it appear as though I broke laws) my actions therefore making finding a new job very difficult, seemingly impossible.

I have what I believe to be ironclad proof, though it is certainly circumstantial. I guess my questions are... where do I go with this? What kind of case am I looking at? Is there enough money in this for me to pursue? The place I worked has a pretty large purse, an annual budget of $30,000,000 or so. What do you guys think?

Additionally, let me add that I was not fired for cause, but my contract expired and was not renewed. I have been collecting unemployment since. I'm not sure what that means, but I'm pretty sure it means that I wasn't "at fault" for my dismissal.

[Dogmatique]

My question involves defamation in the state of: Colorado.

I was fired from a job last year, not for job performance but because of "personal behavior" outside of the workplace. Though I had perhaps behaved inappropriately, I had not broken any laws. The issue isn't my firing, but the fact that the computer "guru" at the workplace used the workplace website as well as other social media to broadcast and even embellish (to the point of making it appear as though I broke laws) my actions therefore making finding a new job very difficult, seemingly impossible.

I have what I believe to be ironclad proof, though it is certainly circumstantial. I guess my questions are... where do I go with this? What kind of case am I looking at? Is there enough money in this for me to pursue? The place I worked has a pretty large purse, an annual budget of $30,000,000 or so. What do you guys think?

Much depends on what was actually said. Embellishing the truth, for example, may not reach "defamation" standards. Telling flat out lies however, may.

Have you been directly accused of illegal activity?

What is it you did?

[LawResearcherMissy]

I have what I believe to be ironclad proof, though it is certainly circumstantial.

If it's circumstantial, it's not ironclad. Those terms are mutually exclusive.

What do you think you're going to sue him for? It's not illegal to tell everyone why you were fired. It's not even illegal to exaggerate a bit for effect, so long as you're not venturing into outright fabrications.

How much time and money do you have to waste on this? A defamation suit typically takes 3 years and about 30 grand to bring forth, with no guarantee of prevailing, and attorneys typically don't take these things on contingency.

[Bill Munny]

I don't have time nor money to waste. The firing was questionable but I wasn't interested in trying to get my job back. Basically, there are outright lies, but they aren't really spelled out so as to make it "circumstantial." I think anyone that would have googled my name a month or two months ago would have put the pieces together... hence "ironclad" evidence. I've since done some repair on my web presence (I think thats what it'd be called). I'm fine with leaving well enough alone, but if there is money in a lawsuit, I'd go that route. I have no doubt the dipshit computer "guru" cost me money.

[Dogmatique]

I don't have time nor money to waste. The firing was questionable but I wasn't interested in trying to get my job back. Basically, there are outright lies, but they aren't really spelled out so as to make it "circumstantial." I think anyone that would have googled my name a month or two months ago would have put the pieces together... hence "ironclad" evidence. I've since done some repair on my web presence (I think thats what it'd be called). I'm fine with leaving well enough alone, but if there is money in a lawsuit, I'd go that route. I have no doubt the dipshit computer "guru" cost me money.

But what can you PROVE?

THAT is what it boils down to.

Do you have tangible damages?

Could the accusations be considered defamation per se? We can't tell unless you tell us.

[Bill Munny]

I feel like I can prove exactly what I'm saying to you... that this individual, using the company website and some other social sites impugned my character costing me job opportunities.

I'm not sure what defamation per se is... perhaps you could enlighten me.

[KeyWestDan]

Frankly, there are only a few things anymore that is defamation per se, such as saying someone is a convicted criminal or has a loathsome disease. You can call someone a criminal and it is opinion. You can call someone all sorts of names and it is all opinion. Opinion is non-actionable, protected by the first amendment. If someone said John Doe is a convicted child molester and that is not true, that would be defamation and actionable. Defamation per quod is when the defamation is only apparent with knowledge held by certain individuals like in Rapp v. Jews for Jesus.

Statements made in relation to employment are given wide and far protection. Not only would you have to sue Mr. Guru, you have to sue the employer and PROVE the employer directed, approved or sanctioned the conduct of Mr. Guru in order to reach the employer. Even if the defamation is serious enough, what you "know" now, is not likely to be what comes out in discovery after they have all been prepped by their attorney.

Obviously the company has enough money to keep you tied up in court for years. No attorney will take such a case on contingency. Also, the winner is not likely to get an award of attorney fees, so the fees could be more than the award as you could not prove much in the way of damages.