An employee's performance evaluation in most cases cannot be used a basis for defamation claim because it generally denotes opinion rather than fact. (See Barker v. Fox & Associates (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 333, 352.) "Unless an employer's performance evaluation falsely accuses an employee of criminal conduct, lack of integrity, dishonesty, incompetence or reprehensible personal characteristics or behavior, it cannot support a claim for defamation.  This is true even when the employer's perceptions about an employee's efforts, attitude, performance, potential or worth to the enterprise are objectively wrong and cannot be supported by reference to concrete, provable facts." Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 958, 965. This is because mangers are given wide latitude in subjectively evaluating their subordinates. Thus, for instance, referring to an employee as "unprofessional" or "lacking in drive" is usually an opinion.

However, careful analysis of the exact statements made in employee evaluation is necessary whether a statement is actionable in court as defamatory. For example, such statement as "difficult to work with" imply an assertion that can be objectively proved as false, especially if the employer claims to have received feedback from other employees supporting this, when they in fact never received such information.  (See Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 728 (...although assertions employee was "not carrying his weight" and
"evidenced a lack of direction" were opinions, other assertion that third parties complained about
employee presented provably false assertion of fact). Certainly, when the employer is caught fabricating evidence, this makes any case, including defamation case, much stronger. Both employees and employers should know that even one provably false statement can form a basis for a defamation case against the employer. This type of claim might or might not be worth pursuing, depending on other circumstances and other claims that can be made against the employer. 

Yesterday, I received a call from a potential client who was understandably angry. She was terminated and apparently falsely accused of egregious misconduct that she never committed. It's possible that she had a legitimate workplace defamation claim against her employer. 

The woman sounded infuriated and eager to go to "war" against her employer as soon as possible. As soon as I started explaining to her what evidence she needs in order to have a legitimate defamation claim and what she was currently missing to have a case, she said: "I think you are wrong, I am going to continue looking for a lawyer" and hung up the phone.

That caller was of a known type - she is driven by her emotion, and by her desire to hear what she wants to hear. I did not even have a chance to tell her that I am a lawyer. And, while I sincerely sympathize with her situation and the unfortunate events prior to her apparently wrongful termination, I was there to advise her on her legal rights, not what's fair and not on what's right.  I just hope that she doesn't waste too much time calling other lawyers around town, or paying a large amount of money who will take advantage of her emotional state and lead her to believe that she has a case without investigation the facts of her claim carefully, as it's so critical to a successful prosecution of any wrongful termination claim, and especially when it comes to slander and libel at workplace.

It is common for a company to fire and employee and write in the letter of termination that the subject employee was terminated for falsifying company records. Many of these accusations are not true, unfounded, not based on any real facts or exaggerated, turning a simple innocent mistake by an employee into a charge of forgery. The California law provides a powerful tool of a claim for Defamation (general term for Slander and Libel) that can be brought against employers for such false accusations and result in award of damages. Although a number of hurdles, many of which are procedural technical, exist in bringing and prosecuting a claim for defamation, this article discusses a few of the common obstacles and defenses that the employers use when sued for defamation and the truth about those arguments.  

Employers often claim that the employee cannot have a defamation claim unless the publication of false information was made to a third party (someone other than the employee and the employer).  However, this argument is without merit, as publication occurs when a statement is communicated to any person other than the party defamed (the employee falsely accused). Bindrim v. Mitchell (9179) 92 Cal.App.3d 61, 79. Even internal corporate statements can be considered publications within the meaning of the defamation law. Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 944. In Agarwal, the court stated that internal company statements regarding the plaintiff's "lack of job knowledge and cooperation" were considered "published" for the purposes of alleging libel. 

Employers and especially their attorneys like to argue that "falsifying" is the same as making a mistake. First, it is important ton ote that the code definition of libel has been held to include almost any language which, upon its face, has a natural tendency to injure a person's reputation, either generally, or with respect to his occupation. Schomberg v. Walker, 132 Cal. 224. At least in one case the court held that the statement that plaintiff falsified invoices were slanderous per se in that it charged plaintiff with forgery. This kind of statement clearly implies that the accused employee did so with intent do defraud. Kelly v. General Telephone Company (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 278, 285.

The defendant empoyer cannot avoid liability by claiming that the employer gave a more innocent meaning to the term "falsify" or any other accusation damaging the employee's reputation, than the employee sees in it. However, the California Supreme Court observed that the language used is to be considered not only in terms of actual words used by also according to the sense and meaning under all the circumstnaces attending the publication which such language may fairly be presume to have conveyed to those to whom it was published. Grover v. Tribune Publishing Company, Inc. (1959) 52 Cal.2d 536, 546.

Further, the fact that an implied defamatory charage or insinuation leaves room for an innocent interpretation (such as considering falsifying to be equivalent to mistake or negligence), does not establish that the defamatory meaning does not appear from the language itself. The language used may give rise to conflicting inferences as to the meaning intended, but thwne it is addressed to the public at large, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the readers will take it it its defamatory sense. Id. at 549.