Defamation In The Gail Davis V. Diana Ross Case

Defamation is a tort action that has been widely recognized, nonetheless, it has only been within recent years, that the concept has been increasingly utilized in the employment context (Mcconnell, 2000, p. 78) . However, it is useful to first lay out the elements of the defamation tort as they occur in the employment setting. First, there must be a false, and defamatory statement. A statement is defamatory if it harms the employee's reputation or discourages others; such as potential employers, from wanting to have any contact with the employee. Second, the statement, be it written or oral, must be "published," that is, transmitted to a third party. Next, the defendant/employer must be responsible for the publication of the false and defamatory statement. Last, defamation damage to the plaintiff must occur; caused either by the statement itself, or by its actionable

Diana Ross case, the court should rule in favor for Gail Davis. In my opinion, the letter could be interpreted as libelous. The combination of expressed dissatisfaction with Davis’ work habits, her erroneous inclusion among a group of people who had been terminated, and the recommendation to not hire her, could be viewed as defamatory. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the lower courts view, that the statements were mere opinion, rather than purported fact. Since the letter claimed to be based on facts and was distributed to others, it was not a mere personal opinion. Additionally, the case was remanded, therefore, the court did not consider the issue of qualified privilege, which is another defamation defense that is often relevant in work related defamation actions Walsh, 2013. P. 153). Presumably, the unsolicited distribution of the letter with its recommendation not to hire, could be viewed as both malice, and as an overly broad publication. The failure to verify the simple fact that Gail Davis had not been fired, could also be viewed as reckless disregard for the