In this case, being a successful executive assistant highly depends on trust and one’s ability to keep personal information about his or her client secret. Furthermore, this is especially so in the entertainment industry because an entertainer’s reputation and career could be destroyed if certain information is leaked to the press or entertainment columnist for public scrutiny. So, an employer must rely on the ethical behavior of his or her employee and their ability to maintain confidential information about them. However, one can easily concluded that trust is needed from both parties in order to maintain equilibrium. Nevertheless, on the other hand, an entertainer could destroy the career or make it hard for him or her to find employment …show more content…
Ross tainted her reputation and character with defaming accusation. Furthermore, I believe that defamation of character, without citing any specific job performance problems, was used as a retaliatory measure for Ms. Davis voluntarily resigning from her position with the legendary singer, Diana Ross. Yet, Ms. Davis never used the defendant as a reference for a job and no one had ever contacted the defendant stating otherwise, I do not believe that Ms. Ross had a right to defame her character in such a demeaning manner. Furthermore, the defendant statements could hurt the plaintiff’s current work status or her potential for future employment elsewhere in the entertainment industry as an executive assistant. Although Ms. Ross cited that she terminated these former employees due to his or her work or personal habits, she did not cite what they were and left it to the interpretation of a future or current employer, which lends itself to a defaming interpretation of the character of Ms. Davis, the executive …show more content…
Ross and that it was not intended to defame the plaintiff’s character in any way, but the plaintiff’s belief is that Ms. Ross’s letter gave a false narrative of her performance while working for the defendant. “In defending against a defamation suit, the employer is obviously on solid footing if he can establish that his statement was, indeed, true” (Yulish, & Heshizer, 1989, p. 355). Therefore, I believe that the court in this case as in any lawsuit, must identify how a plaintiff was harmed or may be harmed by a defendant’s actions. In this case, as an executive assistant, trust, integrity, and confidentiality is a immediate and primary concern to any employer, especially for one whose careers is in the entertainment industry. Therefore, as a legendary entertainer whose career expands decades, Ms. Ross’s negative statements about Ms. Davis and others carries weight inside and outside of the entertainment industry and must be backed up with documented proof or the people mentioned in her letter will become tainted and unemployable without any substantiated evidence to back-up the defendant’s
Sharkey can make a prima facie showing that her complaints about the Suspect Client were protected activity and that was a contributing factor to her termination and whether JPMC can prove by convincing evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that protected behavior.
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
In this case, Taylor who was the Vice President of Meritor Bank hired Vinson as a teller for Meritor Savings Bank. For Taylor, there was an instant attraction to Vinson and he pursued her sexually. Vinson started meeting Taylor outside of work and the relationship grew to be of the sexual nature. Taylor, being her boss, started showing possessive displays of affection within the work place in front of job candidates and current employees. Taylor then suggested that Vinson apply for a higher-ranking job he supervised. Vinson deliberated on it, decided to interview, and was then promoted. Taylor and Vinson had many sexual encounters, 40-50 times, during the course of her employment with the bank. Taylor started getting more aggressive with his impromptu barrage of sexual encounters in places like the women's bathroom. When Vinson notified Taylor that she had developed and was embarking on a relationship with another male, Tay...
Villiers, M. d. (2008). Substantial Truth in Defamation Law. New South Wales: University of New South Wales.
Consequently, Jones reported she suffered adverse employment action by her superiors, who “treated her rudely and changed her job responsibilities” (Motos, 1998).
Maria DeSimone, 40 years old; wife and mother of two children of Palm Bay, Florida, was refused employment at the establishment in which she applied to. The circumstances surrounding the case were as follows. Ms. DeSimone possessed two years of previous restaurant experience, she applied for a position at Texas Roadhouse of Palm Bay to the manager of the facility. When she never heard back from the manager (who said he would get back to her); she happened to be discussing the situation with a friend; the friend told her that Texas Roadhouse had just hired her 19-year-old daughter to the position in which she had just applied for. Previously when she had not heard back from the manager about the position, he told her that “they weren’t hiring at this time” (Lee and Hymowitz,
Good Morning, I stand here before you today to speak on behalf of ____, at this ___convention. Many of you seated here are either critics, reviewers or opinionists and take great pride and joy in the profession that you do. (advise). The tort, defamation, regards the area of law dealing with the protection of reputation. The law provides the person who has been wrongfully attacked, the right to take legal action against those responsible. (reference)
Writers John Stossel and Frank Mastropolo, both working as a correspondent and journalist in ABC News, open their article highlighting the accomplishments of Bruce Marrow, a radio personality legend who “has been on the air for decades,” “Introduced the Beatles at the New York Shea’s Stadium,” and “was credited with helping push oldies station WCBS-FM to number one” (Stossel). However, the writers ended the paragraph talking about how legend Bruce Marrow, despite his endeavors, had been abruptly fired without any warning three years ago. They then continue to apply the same scenario to Kansas City DJ’s Max Floyd and Tanna Guthrie from 99.7 KY. The main reason why Stossel and his co-writer had decided to brusquely end the first paragraph of the article, it is not to embarrass Bruce Marrow or Max Floyd or Tanna Guthrie, but instead, to identify whether it is fair for people to get fired, even after they help build a company, just because they are getting old. The writer’s thesis starts off effective, but the bitter, harsh tone undoes its effectiveness.
In class this session, we discussed the case of a man, John Stone, fired for wearing his Packers tie at work where his boss was a fan of the rival team. In this case, Stone’s boss was a Bears’ fan, which was explicitly known at the dealership and by Stone. When Stone wore his Packer’s tie to the dealership one day, he was fired. Stone’s boss states that he repeatedly told Stone to remove the tie and that Stone did not comply. Stone retaliates by saying that he was in the middle of speaking with customers during these orders and his boss told him to continue with his job. Immediately afte...
The Plaintiff Falls argues that he is a not a public figure because he did not voluntarily thrust himself into public controversy over his termination. However, this is not the test. Rather, the test is if the title “sportswriter” earns him public figure attention for the purposes of commentary. According to the USA Today’s “cover story,” The Sporting News had a circulation of 700,000 in 1985. Due to this finding, Falls could not argue a claim for protection as a private figure, and thus, he is required to prove actual
Trust is the first one of the characteristics and is very important in our profession. Without trust in our profession we could not accomplish anything. In Chapter on...
Facts of the case: Anna’s immediate supervisor, Michael, repeatedly required that she have “closed door” meetings with him. Closed-door meetings violate company policy. Other employees were aware of these closed-door meetings and, as a result, rumors began to spread that Anna and Michael were having an office romance. In fact, in these closed-door meetings Michael tried to convince Anna to lend him money, a practice that also violates company policy. Anna repeatedly denied the request and Michael stopped asking. However, the rumors continued and affected Anna deeply. She was treated like an outcast by her co-workers. Anna asked Michael to clear up the rumors, but he found them amusing. Anna had two evaluations where she scored low points for “integrity” and “interpersonal relations” as a consequence of the rumors. She was passed over for two promotions for which she applied where her skills and experience were superior to the employees who were promoted. She filed an action against her employer on the ground that her supervisor had created a hostile work environment because he refused to stop the rumors.
Does the public have a right to know everything about a public figure’s life? If you turn on your television, the primetime program will have lots of news about celebrities. By the time you have to pay at the register at the supermarket, you can appreciate your favorite public star on the cover of a magazine, or if you open up a new window on the internet browser, a celebrity gadget will appear at the beginning. It is irresistible not to read about the personal lives of the various famous people with pictures, or watch what is happening in the showbiz. In fact, it makes entertainment for a while boring.
SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 Feb. 2014. Sisto, Joseph. " Do Celebrities Forfeit the Right to Privacy?"
According to Steven Knowlton, author of Moral Reasoning for Journalists, "Celebrities of all sorts-musicians, athletes, entertainers, and others-make their living from the public and the public therefore in a sense employs them, just as it employs governors and presidents..."(54). Most journalists figure that celebrities voluntarily surrender their pr...