Why is this wrong, even if it is true? [on hold]
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
In this story https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/she-emailed-35-people-her-former-employer-got-237-000-20190405-p51b8m.html why would the dissemination of information to stakeholders be wrong?
asked 8 hours ago
Trevor McInnesTrevor McInnes
1
New contributor
Trevor McInnes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by DarkCygnus, Dukeling, bruglesco, HorusKol, gnat 1 hour ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave these specific reasons:
- "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only a specific company or position are of limited use to future visitors. Questions seeking legal advice should be directed to legal professionals. For more information, click here." – Dukeling, HorusKol
- "Questions require a goal that we can address. Rather than explaining the difficulties of your situation, explain what you want to do to make it better. For more information, see this meta post." – DarkCygnus, bruglesco
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
In this story https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/she-emailed-35-people-her-former-employer-got-237-000-20190405-p51b8m.html why would the dissemination of information to stakeholders be wrong?
asked 8 hours ago
Trevor McInnesTrevor McInnes
1
New contributor
Trevor McInnes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by DarkCygnus, Dukeling, bruglesco, HorusKol, gnat 1 hour ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave these specific reasons:
- "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only a specific company or position are of limited use to future visitors. Questions seeking legal advice should be directed to legal professionals. For more information, click here." – Dukeling, HorusKol
- "Questions require a goal that we can address. Rather than explaining the difficulties of your situation, explain what you want to do to make it better. For more information, see this meta post." – DarkCygnus, bruglesco
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
4
I assume the court documents are available, why not find them and see for yourself rather than seeking other peoples' opinions? Also, this seems like a pretty clear defamation case. An employer calling a former employee dishonest without any evidence to back that up is defamation.
– user1666620
8 hours ago
7
Because you can't spread lies that negatively affect someone's career?
– mcknz
8 hours ago
2
Wasn't the judge's statement clear? "“callous defamation of a vulnerable young man”... “The plaintiff’s character was seriously impugned … his reputation suffered damage, both directly in the eyes of the recipients and by reason of the grapevine effect,” the judgment said. “The group to which the defendant chose to send the emails was vital to the plaintiff’s advancement in his chosen career.”"
– Joe Strazzere
7 hours ago
3
This belongs on Law.se technically, but this is such textbook defamation that it's surely a duplicate of another question about defamation.
– IllusiveBrian
7 hours ago
1
I'm flagging this as "primarily opinion-based" because it seems more like an effort to start a discussion than an actual question. In either case, it seems perfectly clear why this is wrong, so I'm not even sure exactly what you're asking about.
– EJoshuaS
7 hours ago
add a comment |
In this story https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/she-emailed-35-people-her-former-employer-got-237-000-20190405-p51b8m.html why would the dissemination of information to stakeholders be wrong?
asked 8 hours ago
Trevor McInnesTrevor McInnes
1
New contributor
Trevor McInnes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
In this story https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/she-emailed-35-people-her-former-employer-got-237-000-20190405-p51b8m.html why would the dissemination of information to stakeholders be wrong?
asked 8 hours ago
Trevor McInnesTrevor McInnes
1
New contributor
Trevor McInnes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
Trevor McInnesTrevor McInnes
1
New contributor
Trevor McInnes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
Trevor McInnesTrevor McInnes
1
New contributor
Trevor McInnes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
Trevor McInnesTrevor McInnes
1
asked 8 hours ago
Trevor McInnesTrevor McInnes
1
1
New contributor
Trevor McInnes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Trevor McInnes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Trevor McInnes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by DarkCygnus, Dukeling, bruglesco, HorusKol, gnat 1 hour ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave these specific reasons:
- "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only a specific company or position are of limited use to future visitors. Questions seeking legal advice should be directed to legal professionals. For more information, click here." – Dukeling, HorusKol
- "Questions require a goal that we can address. Rather than explaining the difficulties of your situation, explain what you want to do to make it better. For more information, see this meta post." – DarkCygnus, bruglesco
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as off-topic by DarkCygnus, Dukeling, bruglesco, HorusKol, gnat 1 hour ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave these specific reasons:
- "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only a specific company or position are of limited use to future visitors. Questions seeking legal advice should be directed to legal professionals. For more information, click here." – Dukeling, HorusKol
- "Questions require a goal that we can address. Rather than explaining the difficulties of your situation, explain what you want to do to make it better. For more information, see this meta post." – DarkCygnus, bruglesco
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
4
I assume the court documents are available, why not find them and see for yourself rather than seeking other peoples' opinions? Also, this seems like a pretty clear defamation case. An employer calling a former employee dishonest without any evidence to back that up is defamation.
– user1666620
8 hours ago
7
Because you can't spread lies that negatively affect someone's career?
– mcknz
8 hours ago
2
Wasn't the judge's statement clear? "“callous defamation of a vulnerable young man”... “The plaintiff’s character was seriously impugned … his reputation suffered damage, both directly in the eyes of the recipients and by reason of the grapevine effect,” the judgment said. “The group to which the defendant chose to send the emails was vital to the plaintiff’s advancement in his chosen career.”"
– Joe Strazzere
7 hours ago
3
This belongs on Law.se technically, but this is such textbook defamation that it's surely a duplicate of another question about defamation.
– IllusiveBrian
7 hours ago
1
I'm flagging this as "primarily opinion-based" because it seems more like an effort to start a discussion than an actual question. In either case, it seems perfectly clear why this is wrong, so I'm not even sure exactly what you're asking about.
– EJoshuaS
7 hours ago
add a comment |
4
I assume the court documents are available, why not find them and see for yourself rather than seeking other peoples' opinions? Also, this seems like a pretty clear defamation case. An employer calling a former employee dishonest without any evidence to back that up is defamation.
– user1666620
8 hours ago
7
Because you can't spread lies that negatively affect someone's career?
– mcknz
8 hours ago
2
Wasn't the judge's statement clear? "“callous defamation of a vulnerable young man”... “The plaintiff’s character was seriously impugned … his reputation suffered damage, both directly in the eyes of the recipients and by reason of the grapevine effect,” the judgment said. “The group to which the defendant chose to send the emails was vital to the plaintiff’s advancement in his chosen career.”"
– Joe Strazzere
7 hours ago
3
This belongs on Law.se technically, but this is such textbook defamation that it's surely a duplicate of another question about defamation.
– IllusiveBrian
7 hours ago
1
I'm flagging this as "primarily opinion-based" because it seems more like an effort to start a discussion than an actual question. In either case, it seems perfectly clear why this is wrong, so I'm not even sure exactly what you're asking about.
– EJoshuaS
7 hours ago
4
4
I assume the court documents are available, why not find them and see for yourself rather than seeking other peoples' opinions? Also, this seems like a pretty clear defamation case. An employer calling a former employee dishonest without any evidence to back that up is defamation.
– user1666620
8 hours ago
I assume the court documents are available, why not find them and see for yourself rather than seeking other peoples' opinions? Also, this seems like a pretty clear defamation case. An employer calling a former employee dishonest without any evidence to back that up is defamation.
– user1666620
8 hours ago
7
7
Because you can't spread lies that negatively affect someone's career?
– mcknz
8 hours ago
Because you can't spread lies that negatively affect someone's career?
– mcknz
8 hours ago
2
2
Wasn't the judge's statement clear? "“callous defamation of a vulnerable young man”... “The plaintiff’s character was seriously impugned … his reputation suffered damage, both directly in the eyes of the recipients and by reason of the grapevine effect,” the judgment said. “The group to which the defendant chose to send the emails was vital to the plaintiff’s advancement in his chosen career.”"
– Joe Strazzere
7 hours ago
Wasn't the judge's statement clear? "“callous defamation of a vulnerable young man”... “The plaintiff’s character was seriously impugned … his reputation suffered damage, both directly in the eyes of the recipients and by reason of the grapevine effect,” the judgment said. “The group to which the defendant chose to send the emails was vital to the plaintiff’s advancement in his chosen career.”"
– Joe Strazzere
7 hours ago
3
3
This belongs on Law.se technically, but this is such textbook defamation that it's surely a duplicate of another question about defamation.
– IllusiveBrian
7 hours ago
This belongs on Law.se technically, but this is such textbook defamation that it's surely a duplicate of another question about defamation.
– IllusiveBrian
7 hours ago
1
1
I'm flagging this as "primarily opinion-based" because it seems more like an effort to start a discussion than an actual question. In either case, it seems perfectly clear why this is wrong, so I'm not even sure exactly what you're asking about.
– EJoshuaS
7 hours ago
I'm flagging this as "primarily opinion-based" because it seems more like an effort to start a discussion than an actual question. In either case, it seems perfectly clear why this is wrong, so I'm not even sure exactly what you're asking about.
– EJoshuaS
7 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
It appears that the judge in this case did not believe the comments made by the defendant were true. If they had simply stated that the victim was no longer with the firm and not stated any reasons why, they would have probably not had to pay over $200,000.
answered 3 hours ago
Glen PierceGlen Pierce
7,98151732
add a comment |
Yes there was a similar question but it seems to have been deleted. I am sure that the German company with its HQ in the netherlands has done the right thing and confessed to the person that was let go around Christmas time about whom deregoratory emails were being distributed, before removing the posts...
answered 7 hours ago
Not Here AgainNot Here Again
1
New contributor
Not Here Again is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It appears that the judge in this case did not believe the comments made by the defendant were true. If they had simply stated that the victim was no longer with the firm and not stated any reasons why, they would have probably not had to pay over $200,000.
answered 3 hours ago
Glen PierceGlen Pierce
7,98151732
add a comment |
It appears that the judge in this case did not believe the comments made by the defendant were true. If they had simply stated that the victim was no longer with the firm and not stated any reasons why, they would have probably not had to pay over $200,000.
answered 3 hours ago
Glen PierceGlen Pierce
7,98151732
add a comment |
It appears that the judge in this case did not believe the comments made by the defendant were true. If they had simply stated that the victim was no longer with the firm and not stated any reasons why, they would have probably not had to pay over $200,000.
answered 3 hours ago
Glen PierceGlen Pierce
7,98151732
It appears that the judge in this case did not believe the comments made by the defendant were true. If they had simply stated that the victim was no longer with the firm and not stated any reasons why, they would have probably not had to pay over $200,000.
answered 3 hours ago
Glen PierceGlen Pierce
7,98151732
answered 3 hours ago
Glen PierceGlen Pierce
7,98151732
answered 3 hours ago
Glen PierceGlen Pierce
7,98151732
answered 3 hours ago
Glen PierceGlen Pierce
7,98151732
7,98151732
add a comment |
add a comment |
Yes there was a similar question but it seems to have been deleted. I am sure that the German company with its HQ in the netherlands has done the right thing and confessed to the person that was let go around Christmas time about whom deregoratory emails were being distributed, before removing the posts...
answered 7 hours ago
Not Here AgainNot Here Again
1
New contributor
Not Here Again is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Yes there was a similar question but it seems to have been deleted. I am sure that the German company with its HQ in the netherlands has done the right thing and confessed to the person that was let go around Christmas time about whom deregoratory emails were being distributed, before removing the posts...
answered 7 hours ago
Not Here AgainNot Here Again
1
New contributor
Not Here Again is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Yes there was a similar question but it seems to have been deleted. I am sure that the German company with its HQ in the netherlands has done the right thing and confessed to the person that was let go around Christmas time about whom deregoratory emails were being distributed, before removing the posts...
answered 7 hours ago
Not Here AgainNot Here Again
1
New contributor
Not Here Again is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Yes there was a similar question but it seems to have been deleted. I am sure that the German company with its HQ in the netherlands has done the right thing and confessed to the person that was let go around Christmas time about whom deregoratory emails were being distributed, before removing the posts...
answered 7 hours ago
Not Here AgainNot Here Again
1
New contributor
Not Here Again is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 7 hours ago
Not Here AgainNot Here Again
1
New contributor
Not Here Again is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 7 hours ago
Not Here AgainNot Here Again
1
answered 7 hours ago
Not Here AgainNot Here Again
1
1
New contributor
Not Here Again is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Not Here Again is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Not Here Again is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
4
I assume the court documents are available, why not find them and see for yourself rather than seeking other peoples' opinions? Also, this seems like a pretty clear defamation case. An employer calling a former employee dishonest without any evidence to back that up is defamation.
– user1666620
8 hours ago
7
Because you can't spread lies that negatively affect someone's career?
– mcknz
8 hours ago
2
Wasn't the judge's statement clear? "“callous defamation of a vulnerable young man”... “The plaintiff’s character was seriously impugned … his reputation suffered damage, both directly in the eyes of the recipients and by reason of the grapevine effect,” the judgment said. “The group to which the defendant chose to send the emails was vital to the plaintiff’s advancement in his chosen career.”"
– Joe Strazzere
7 hours ago
3
This belongs on Law.se technically, but this is such textbook defamation that it's surely a duplicate of another question about defamation.
– IllusiveBrian
7 hours ago
1
I'm flagging this as "primarily opinion-based" because it seems more like an effort to start a discussion than an actual question. In either case, it seems perfectly clear why this is wrong, so I'm not even sure exactly what you're asking about.
– EJoshuaS
7 hours ago