Robert Ambrogi reports (and court documents confirm) that a federal jury in Boston last week ruled in favor of Staples in a libel lawsuit brought by a former employee who claimed he'd been libeled when a company vice president sent out e-mail to 1,500 employees explaining why he'd been fired.
You may recall that a federal appeals court ruled that a 1902 Massachusetts law meant in this case that the truth was not an absolute defense against libel.
Dan Kennedy sighs that despite the jury verdict, the appeals decision remains on the books, meaning you still have grounds to sue somebody in Massachusetts who tells the truth about you, Times v. Sullivan be damned.
Oh, and the employee, Arthur Noonan, filed another defamation lawsuit against Staples and a vice president over the same basic issue in September.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Once again
By Will LaTulippe
Tue, 10/13/2009 - 1:05pm
Common sense is against the law in Massachusetts.
Not the end of the world
By Lanny Budd
Tue, 10/13/2009 - 4:32pm
Dan Kennedy can sigh all he wants. Libel can be the truth told with malicious intent.
Yes, if lying is a good thing...
By Kaz
Tue, 10/13/2009 - 5:45pm
The matronly axiom "Don't say anything if you can't say something nice at all" is hogwash. The truth is the truth and people should accept truth a little more and nonsense a little less. If I tell you the truth, it's not libel/slander no matter what the subject matter. If you don't want to be slandered or libeled against, then you shouldn't have done whatever horrible act you feel my telling someone else will harm you for them to know.
I should have no legal obligation to hold your treacherous, publicly embarrassing, or shameful secrets to myself. We'd be better off if these facts of matter weren't shameful to begin with and that won't happen until we reduce the stigma attached to them by making them freely known in the first place. Thus, it only makes sense to make these things known to others.
Your law is wrong
By deselby
Wed, 10/14/2009 - 1:34am
Times v. Sullivan applies to "public figures," which your average Staples employee is not.
Angie's list?
By merlinmurph
Wed, 10/14/2009 - 8:02am
What does this say for something like Angie's list, where people call out lousy contractor's? If someone truthfully recounts a story about how a contractor barely showed up, took forever, and never really finished a project that came out really bad, are they subject to getting sued for libel?
From one person who doesn't see the logic in this......
Not only that
By Kaz
Wed, 10/14/2009 - 9:57am
Could you bust Yelp as co-conspirators?
And Chowhound?
By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 10/14/2009 - 10:22am
;~}
(which at least one anon here seems not to like)
Duplicate post
By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 10/14/2009 - 10:24am
(edited)
But I could swear I only hit post once! Strange.