310-319-6188

Attorneys At Law, Representing Employees in Civil Rights and Employment Litigation

California Employees Defamation Blog

Defamation Liability Related to Workplace Investigations

Frequently, workplace events give rise to a workplace investigation.  The investigation may be conducted by an in-house HR person or a professional outside investigator.  Workplace investigations play a central role in determining whether to discipline or terminate an employee and can have legal consequences for both employees and employers.  An action for defamation can potentially result if false statements are made to the employee’s detriment.  Although an employer may argue that statements made in the course of a workplace investigation are protected, that privilege would usually be conditional at best, meaning it would be lost if the publication was motivated by maliceDeaile v. General Telephone Company of California (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 841, 847.  

Malice sufficient to defeat the conditional privilege has been found where there has been a failure to investigate the statement(s) or conduct at issue thoroughly and verify the facts stated.  Rollenhagen v. City of Orange (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 414, 423; Widener v. PG&E (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 415, 434-35. It has also been found where there has been purposeful avoidance of the truth or deliberate decision not to investigate facts.  Antonovich v. Sup.Ct. (Schwellenbach) (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1041, 1048.  Where the substance of the defamatory statements pose a substantial danger to the defamed party’s reputation, there is an even greater obligation to investigate the facts thoroughly and fairly.  Failure to do so constitutes reckless disregard for the truth.  Widener, supra, at 434.  This includes the failure to interview obvious witnesses who could have confirmed or disproved the allegations.  Khawar v. Globe Intern., Inc. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 254, 276.

 “Although failure to investigate will not alone support a finding of actual malice, the purposeful avoidance of the truth is in a different category . . . Inaction, i.e., failure to investigate, which was a product of a deliberate decision not to acquire knowledge of facts that might confirm the probable falsity of [the subject] charges will support a finding of actual malice.”  Antonovich v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.3d 1041, 1048 (1991) (internal citations omitted).  

While there is no set way to conduct an appropriate investigation, a proper investigation should meet the EEOC’s guidelines in conducting investigations.  The EEOC’s enforcement guidance is available on their website and can be viewed here:  http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html  In addition, the Association of Workplace Investigators (“AWI”) publication, Guiding Principles for Investigators Conducting Impartial Workplace Investigations, lays out eleven principles that reflect best practices for workplace investigations: http://www.aowi.org/assets/documents/guiding%20principles.pdf

Leave your comments

Post comment as a guest

0
Your comments are subjected to administrator's moderation.
terms and condition.
  • No comments found

About Paul Greenberg and
Greenberg & Weinmann

paul greenberg

Paul Greenberg is managing partner of Greenberg & Weinmann, a law firm that is committed to advancing justice in the workplace and protecting employee rights. For over 25 years, (the last 20 with partner Iris Weinmann), he has handled legal claims on behalf of employees, including over 50 defamation cases that have resulted in significant compensatory and punitive damages and Labor Code section 1050 penalties, in both state and federal court. Greenberg & Weinmann has successfully litigated defamation claims to verdict and received favorable appellate court decisions upholding or reinstating employee rights with respect to their defamation claims. Greenberg & Weinmann is based in Santa Monica, California but litigates statewide.

linkedin onfacebook ontwitter onyoutube on

The information contained above is intended for purely informational purposes.
It does not in any way constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. 
Use of such material does not, in any way, constitute an attorney-client relationship; only an express signed agreement can create such a relationship.

Practice Areas    |   Our Attorneys   |   FAQ   |  California Employees Defamation Blog  |  Ready to Talk?  

1101 Montana Ave., Suite D, Santa Monica, CA 90403

© 2014 Greenberg & Weinmann - All Rights Reserved
website build | designwebolution9