A project manager applied for a job, and listed his previous employer as a reference. When the prospective employer called, the man who gave a reference for the project manager falsely implied that the project manager was incompetent, even though he had never worked with or supervised the employee, nor checked any employment records. The project manager did not get the new job. If the project manager sues his former employer for defamation, the court will likely rule that:

A. the employer did not defame the former employee because its statements were merely opinions and did not purport to be factualB. the employer did not defame the former employee because the statements, although harsh, were truthfulC. the employer defamed the former employee because the employer was recklessly indifferent to the truthfulness of the statements made

Question

Business

Carolyn Floyd

4 November, 19:02

A project manager applied for a job, and listed his previous employer as a reference. When the prospective employer called, the man who gave a reference for the project manager falsely implied that the project manager was incompetent, even though he had never worked with or supervised the employee, nor checked any employment records. The project manager did not get the new job. If the project manager sues his former employer for defamation, the court will likely rule that:

A. the employer did not defame the former employee because its statements were merely opinions and did not purport to be factualB. the employer did not defame the former employee because the statements, although harsh, were truthfulC. the employer defamed the former employee because the employer was recklessly indifferent to the truthfulness of the statements made

+3

Answers (2)

Know the Answer?

Abdiel Giles · Answer 1

C. the employer defamed the former employee because the employer was recklessly indifferent to the truthfulness of the statements made

Aedan Lowery · Answer 2

C. the employer defamed the former employee because the employer was recklessly indifferent to the truthfulness of the statements made

Explanation:

The simple and straightforward ruling by the court would be that the employer defamed the former employee because the employer was indifférent to the truthfulness or factual correctness of the information given to him.

The court would have clear grounds to give the former employee reprieve because the employer was not suitably interested in seeing company records and was quite content with hearing and basing a judgement based on word of mouth only.