The only case you could bring is if the company were deliberately and maliciously saying untrue things about you. In slander action by employee against former employer 在 Berg v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.的案件中,(老貓最後會將案件的概要提供給予您)如果公司的僱主提供不實的資料給予任何您未來的僱主或是任何有可能未來僱用您的僱主,您是可能可以提出訴訟,但是關鍵在於您需要有明確的證據來證明您的前任僱主的行為,同時您必須有明確的證據來證明這項不實的指控對於是否僱用您的決定有明確的影響,以您所描述的情況如果您的前任僱主隻提及您的辦公室戀情的部份,您可能很難建立一個有效的案件.
Berg v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.的案件
Employee filed action in trespass for slander against former employer. The Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Civil Division, No. 3327 January 1975, Ross, J., entered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of the employee, and denied employer's motions for a new trial and for judgment n. o. v. Appeal was taken. The Superior Court, Nos. 291 and 331 April Term, 1979, Hester, J., held that: (1) where employee was forced to resign amidst an investigation for theft, along with the actual thieves, and employer made communications to others reflecting upon employee's character and reputation, which were proved to be untrue, employee could maintain action against employer for slander, and issue of whether injury to employee's reputation was caused by employer's actions was question for jury; (2) the trial court's charge as to the qualified privilege of the employer was correct; and (3) award of $40,600 to the employee who lost approximately ten months wages following his discharge, plus another year due to employer's conduct, and who suffered anxiety, humiliation and damage to his reputation was not out of line
Berg v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.的案件
Employee filed action in trespass for slander against former employer. The Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Civil Division, No. 3327 January 1975, Ross, J., entered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of the employee, and denied employer's motions for a new trial and for judgment n. o. v. Appeal was taken. The Superior Court, Nos. 291 and 331 April Term, 1979, Hester, J., held that: (1) where employee was forced to resign amidst an investigation for theft, along with the actual thieves, and employer made communications to others reflecting upon employee's character and reputation, which were proved to be untrue, employee could maintain action against employer for slander, and issue of whether injury to employee's reputation was caused by employer's actions was question for jury; (2) the trial court's charge as to the qualified privilege of the employer was correct; and (3) award of $40,600 to the employee who lost approximately ten months wages following his discharge, plus another year due to employer's conduct, and who suffered anxiety, humiliation and damage to his reputation was not out of line
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
