Former Mobil Employee Sues for Wrongful Termination and Defamation
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 21, 2017
Employment Employment Wrongful Termination Accident & Injury Defamation & Slander
Summary: Blog post about a former employee of Mobil Chemical Company suing them for wrongful termination and defamation of character.
Contact the experienced employment law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com
In the case of Cweklinsky v. Mobil Chemical Company, an employee sued his employer asserting various claims arising out of the termination of his employment. The employee had been terminated when his letter of reinstatement after medical leave had been altered by another employee per their agreement to extend his medical leave. The other employee only made adjustments to the employee’s letter of reinstatement, and did not reflect the changes in Mobile’s office records. As a result of the discrepancy, the employers terminated the employee.
The question addressed was whether Connecticut recognized a cause of action for compelled self-publication defamation based on a former employee's compelled self-publication of an employer's defamatory statements made only to the former employee. A defamatory statement is defined as a communication that tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. For the employee to prevail in a case of defamation, he must demonstrate that: (1) the employer had published a defamatory statement; (2) the defamatory statement identified the employee to a third person; (3) the defamatory statement was published to a third person; and (4) the employee’s reputation suffered injury as a result of the statement.
The supreme court concluded that Connecticut did not recognize such a cause of action, as the public policy considerations that favored the rejection of the doctrine of compelled self-publication defamation outweighed the considerations supporting its recognition. The most compelling public policy consideration against recognition of the doctrine was that acceptance of the doctrine would have a chilling effect on communication in the workplace, thereby contradicting society's fundamental interest in encouraging the free flow of information. The doctrine of compelled self-publication defamation also countered the duty to mitigate damages, compliance with applicable statutes of limitations, and the doctrine of employment at will. The employee's claim that equity and fairness supported recognition of the cause of action was far outweighed by the concerns that weighed against the recognition of the cause of action.
If you feel you have been mistreated by your employer or in your place of employment and would like to explore your employment law options, contact the experienced employment law attorneys today at 203-221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com. We have the experience and knowledge you need at this critical juncture. We serve clients in both New York and Connecticut including New Canaan, Bridgeport, White Plains, and Darien.
Source: Cweklinsky v. Mobil Chem. Co., 267 Conn. 210, 837 A.2d 759, 2004 Conn. LEXIS 2, 20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1281 (Conn. 2004)
