Posted: 10/29/2024 11:23:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: ETCss_McCrackin][Edited]
|
For the last 6 months, my wife has been working as a beertender and de-facto asst manager for a local brewery. It has been apparent for several months, that the business was suffering significantly, with the owner being distant and spending his days on the patio smoking and drinking. He refused to communicate any plans or issues with the staff, even the "head staff". He made each employee sign a document stating they would not go to or work at a competing brewery. The night before hurricane Heline hit Florida, the owner took every employee off the schedule and sent out a message in the work chat saying "how sorry he was" and "how he was trying to fight the inevitable and go down swinging". He said that "he needed to take everyone off the schedule", but despite being asked several times, persistently refused to specifically say if this was permanent or a temporary cost saving measure. As a result of this obfuscation, several employees (including my wife) angrily quit in that group chat. Several other employees are simply in "not-working limbo" and two have been reinstated with significantly reduced hours (with the owner and his girlfriend taking every other shift). My wife proceeded to blast this business and owner on social media, saying that he is a man-child and incompetent businessman that made stupid decisions and sat silently drinking his days away until he suddenly let his staff go the night before a major hurricane. Last night he sent an e-mail to her asserting that she was defaming him and harming his business, and if she didn't remove her derogatory posts, he would consult an attorney. Acknowledging of course the hypocritical childishness of these online rants, what is the risk of any real danger from this legal threat? As near as I can tell, libel and slander laws generally depend on the statements being factually untrue, which they technically are not. However, when it comes to claims such as "manchild alcoholic" and "incompetent businessman", there is obvious room for his probable claim of those being technically false. She remains convinced that he's "full of crap" and "can't afford a lawyer for this BS", but understanding the litigious nature of our society and the predatory lawyers that populate the system, I am not so convinced. |
|
Originally Posted By ETCss_McCrackin: For the last 6 months, my wife has been working as a beertender and de-facto asst manager for a local brewery. It has been apparent for several months, that the business was suffering significantly, with the owner being distant and spending his days on the patio smoking and drinking. He refused to communicate any plans or issues with the staff, even the "head staff". He made each employee sign a document stating they would not go to or work at a competing brewery. The night before hurricane Heline hit Florida, the owner took every employee off the schedule and sent out a message in the work chat saying "how sorry he was" and "how he was trying to fight the inevitable and go down swinging". He said that "he needed to take everyone off the schedule", but despite being asked several times, persistently refused to specifically say if this was permanent or a temporary cost saving measure. As a result of this obfuscation, several employees (including my wife) angrily quit in that group chat. Several other employees are simply in "not-working limbo" and two have been reinstated with significantly reduced hours (with the owner and his girlfriend taking every other shift). My wife proceeded to blast this business and owner on social media, saying that he is a man-child and incompetent businessman that made stupid decisions and sat silently drinking his days away until he suddenly let his staff go the night before a major hurricane. Last night he sent an e-mail to her asserting that she was defaming him and harming his business, and that his attorney was advising that she remove her derogatory posts. Acknowledging of course the hypocritical childishness of these online rants, what is the risk of any real danger from this legal threat? As near as I can tell, libel and slander laws generally depend on the statements being factually untrue, which they technically are not. However, when it comes to claims such as "manchild alcoholic" and "incompetent businessman", there is obvious room for his probable claim of those being technically false. She remains convinced that he's "full of crap" and "can't afford a lawyer for this BS", but understanding the litigious nature of our society and the predatory lawyers that populate the system, I am not so convinced. Delete the posts or at least edit anything personal against the owner. |
|
Let’s assume the guy is a dick and it sure sounds like he is struggling to stay afloat and still making bad decisions. Why leave that crap out there? It’s not just about whether the former employer wants to spend his time and money on suing her (which means time and money from your pocket to defend). Lots of businesses check social media and if a potential next employer sees that, she is unlikely to get the job. She should file for unemployment and move on to the next job asap. I am not your lawyer. Just general thoughts. |
|
Originally Posted By ETCss_McCrackin: She remains convinced that he's "full of crap" and "can't afford a lawyer for this BS", but understanding the litigious nature of our society and the predatory lawyers that populate the system, I am not so convinced. "Tell her to delete the posts, if she refuses, I'll work the case on contingency". Boom, costs him zero, with a potential business saving payday in the near future. (text in quotes is a hypothetical statement, not a literal quote from anyone) |
Joined:
Aug 2023
Posts:
2465
EE: 67% (3)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By ETCss_McCrackin: My wife proceeded to blast this business and owner on social media, saying that he is a man-child and incompetent businessman that made stupid decisions and sat silently drinking his days away until he suddenly let his staff go the night before a major hurricane. Trashing a former employer in a job interview is a good way to not get a job offer. Trashing a former employer in social media is a good way to not get an interview. That said, man-child, incompetent and made stupid decisions are subjective opinions, not libel. Especially if you have good reason for arriving at those conclusions. I'm guessing that's motion to dismiss territory. Drinking his days away and suddenly let his staff go the night before a major hurricane sounds more like a statement of fact or falsehood to be proven after expensive court wrangling. And "I don't want to pay you during hurricane recovery" sounds more like a competent business decision to me, so I don't see how you could defame somebody by claiming he did it. I wouldn't have rage-quit, I would have filed for unemployment immediately upon notification of being scheduled for zero hours. |
I think the hardest thing for good LE working for good agencies to really absorb is that there are whole departments full of exactly the complete fuckheads we rail against here. - vectorsc
|
Regardless of whether it's true or just venting, it's burning a bridge in public. Don't burn bridges if there is any other way, and never burn bridges in public if there is any possibility, no matter how remote, of working in the same industry, or with the same network of people. Period. It's just not worth the potential issues or repercussions. |
A chance to cut is a chance to cure
Life Member: AR15.com, NRA, NYSRPA, SAF
Team Ranstad
VCDL
Callsign: Sawbones
Life Member: AR15.com, NRA, NYSRPA, SAF
Team Ranstad
VCDL
Callsign: Sawbones
|
To be clear. I completely agree about the "burning bridges" concept and the needless drauma of the whole thing. I also concur that it's simply the best thing to delete the whole mess. But if "having her say" and "letting people know what kind of person he is" is more important to her, then my only real concern is an actual lawsuit. I'm really more asking if anyone either has direct experience with this sort of thing or are lawyers themselves, and can rule on "just how possibly screwed are we thanks to her big mouth" and if it's dire enough to be the unfortunate husband that has to "make" his wife do something. |
|
While anyone who makes a bartender or asst manager sign a non compete is a total retard in EVERY known sense of the word, she needs to delete it simply because it'll hurt her employment choices in the future. LOL, a non compete for a bartending job, Lord. This is as dumb as making some burger flipper at the clown sign one to not work for the pigtails or the king. |
Liberals are a curious mix of communism and fascism, they want to destroy you but want to use your own money to do it.
I'm getting down to the last box, the others have all been destroyed...
I'm getting down to the last box, the others have all been destroyed...
|
Originally Posted By SideCarGT: Let's assume the guy is a dick and it sure sounds like he is struggling to stay afloat and still making bad decisions. Why leave that crap out there? It's not just about whether the former employer wants to spend his time and money on suing her (which means time and money from your pocket to defend). Lots of businesses check social media and if a potential next employer sees that, she is unlikely to get the job. She should file for unemployment and move on to the next job asap. I am not your lawyer. Just general thoughts. I left my last job of 19+ years after they made changes that would upend my life and pretty much screw me over in a few ways. I didn't post shit about them,my boss or the upper echelon who actually forced these changes down. I just kept my opinion to myself, put in my app at another company, then 2 days later, put in my 2 weeks. I did not want to chance legal action or a resume stain. |
LARUEMINATI
NRA Endowment Life Member
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
""AKs are for villagers you have to tell not to shit in their water supply.""
NRA Endowment Life Member
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
""AKs are for villagers you have to tell not to shit in their water supply.""
|
IANAL.... But to bring, or bring & WIN a defamation lawsuit in Florida there's a bunch of elements that have to be met or satisfied: FL Law, and most states recognize two forms of "defamation." Libel and Slander. Libel is written & published in some public way, (Social Media is sufficient, obviously.) Slander is spoken from one person to another. Spoken defamation might become Libel, if what's spoken gets recorded and broadcast or replayed for multiple people. Generally, because of the written/recording element, Libel is less difficult to pursue legally than Slander, which is much harder to prove. Civil suit standards of evidence are different than criminal trials, however, "something someone said," still has lots of hearsay pitfalls. And it can have "he said vs. she said" problems, and might need a bigger trail of harder evidence, that prove, or strongly indicate it's probable the defendant did actually utter the Slander. The elements to bring, and win a Libel suit get broken down differently state to state, and even by lawyers explaining it, sometimes because they specialize in representing plaintiffs or defendants. Generally though, the bar to win a case is quite high. Pesky First Amendment, & all that... 1. The statement was factually false, and not just an opinion. If what your wife said was: "Bossman is a spineless coward, and what he decided about XYZ buisness-wise and financially, proves that." Breaking that down, "Bossman is a spineless coward..." is an opinion, and not actionable. If XYZ or something substantially similar, or same difference actually happened, and it was Bossman's choice, the fact isn't in dispute and not actionable. And "[it] proves that." is just another opinion. 2. The statement was distributed, publicly, or to interested or materially relevant parties in written form. That's pretty cut & dried that's been met, this is all about the social media postings. But, this is an ALL list, not an ANY, or SOME list of criteria. 3. The statement caused the plaintiff to suffer an injury or loss. This would be something like "Didn't get a job" customers stopped coming. There bank wouldn't give a loan. This is another difficult one for the plaintiff. (Bossman) Because usually, there needs to be some documented or at least spoken communication that the Libel/Defamation was the reason. And some proof of it, like writing, recordings, or if only verbal, an affidavit or actual testimony they did or didn't "Do X' for Bossman because of your wife's online postings. 4. The statement may need to be provable as being knowingly or intentionally false on the part of the defendant (OP's Wife), to inflict reputational or material/financial/business harm. 5. The statement was not protected. This varies state to state, but "protected statements" are things like: "Fair Comment" - That, again, it's an opinion, not a fact or falsehood presented as a fact. The defendant had good reason to believe it was true to the best of their knowledge. It is about a public issue or matter of interest. "Consent by the plaintiff," they cannot sue for an interview they agreed to and then later decide what they said made them look bad, and threaten libel or defamation to try and stop it from being published or broadcast. "Modest factual inaccuracies" - Someone can't use minutae or picayune details, terms, or wordings to claim factual inaccuracies to build a Libel case on a defendant. "The truth." - Again, it's true. And generally, public figures and politicians have substantially higher thresholds to prove defamation & libel against someone, vs. a more private individual not substantially putting themselves into public life. As you can see, in my IANAL summary, defamation and Libel or Slander is a rather high bar to prove and win in a civil suit. The law & courts are, and were, generally always leaning in the direction of the accused/defendant, and aware that "lawfare" by a wealthier or more powerful individual just to silence someone or something they disliked, was always possible. And that the defamation has to be exceptionally targeted and specific, meeting all the criteria of being substantially factual, or conversely is a falsehood being presented as a fact, not an opinion, the person making the statement isn't acting in "good faith" and isn't just honestly mistaken, etc. The IANAL part gets serious though, as to if Bossman goes scorched-earth even if it's impossible to win, as I have zero clue what FL frivolous lawsuit protections, laws, or case-law & precidents on malicious torts & lawsuits might be. Real world, do nothing, and it's 99.9999% certain he can't win a case. Maybe 99.9% certain he won't find a lawyer that would take it on contingency (free unless Bossman wins) against a private "regular" person that has few attachable assets, could declare bankruptcy, and is probably a homestead state where liens or judgments against anyone's primary or sole residence aren't allowed. And only you and your wife can decide if there's no immediate risks Bossman would be nuts enough (or can even afford) to pay on retainer & billable hours, and find an ambulance chaser worse than "Better Call Saul." One that's willing to take his money, and not advise Bossman he'll look even worse and like a bully as the lawsuit is public record. And future buisness partners or clients could take that info into consideration far more seriously than some online complaining. And perhaps a 50% chance that Bossman will pay a few hundred bucks to an attorney to send a "cease & desist" letter on firm letterhead. And the attorney won't advise against even THAT, as they've legally toilet paper in most circumstances. And have about the same risks of a suit for looking like an asshole, unhinged, a bully, and calling more attention to the whole situation. Because if the person that gets such a letter knows it's "power" (usually almost none) and scans and posts it, that has all the potential to make Bossman look bad as the suit would. A Lawyer will tell you the same, with various minor nitpick detais. And it will vary a little on the specifics of FL laws, and how much they value "ethics" and "adult behavior & propriety" (Bossman can't do anything, but just taking the online postings down to be "adult" and remove the 0.0001% he tries anyway won't hurt. No charge...  ) vs. billable hour income. (Bossman PROBABLY can't do anything, but more vague handwavium... Want me to write him a nasty letter on firm letterhead he has no legal standing, and we know it? That'll be $1000.00)
|
Like most Americans, I learned all I needed to know about the Vietnam War by watching M*A*S*H*...
|
Originally Posted By SuperHeavy: Post the document she had to sign. Did he have them all sign that knowing his business was in the shitter? The privilege/ non disparaging clause usually comes with a consideration. If the allegations are true ie can be shown vs he said she said, probably ok. If it cannot be proven or a personal attack might want to consult an attorney. |
VCDL Member
NRA Life Member
NRA Life Member
