The Reference Call and the Rotary Dinner
Nadia, a bank teller, applies at Second National. Second National calls her former supervisor, Wills, at First Bank. Wills says: "Nadia was fired for cash-drawer shortages - I'd watch her." Nadia was in fact fired for chronic lateness; the $200 shortage was later traced to another teller. Wills pulled the shortage claim from a two-year-old memo he misread, honestly but carelessly, and never rechecked the file. Second National withdraws the offer. That night at a Rotary dinner, a member asks Wills why Nadia left, and Wills repeats the shortage story to a room of thirty. Nadia's neighbor relays it further. Nadia lost an $8,000 position, has no other lost wages, and seeks presumed and punitive damages.
1. Does Wills's statement to Second National support a defamation claim?
Read the worked answer
The elements are met on its face; the battleground is privilege.
Elements. The statement is defamatory - it imputes theft, which also makes it slander per se, so special harm need not be pleaded. It is of and concerning Nadia, published to a third party (the recruiter), and false.
Qualified privilege. An employer giving a reference to a prospective employer shares a common interest, so a qualified privilege attaches. The privilege is defeated by malice: common-law malice (ill will) or, for private figures on private matters, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard. Wills had no ill will.
The fault question. Nadia is a private figure on a private matter, so she must prove at least negligence as to falsity. Wills was careless but honest. Mere carelessness usually will not defeat a qualified privilege, which requires recklessness or knowledge. Nadia's best argument is that repeating an accusation of theft from a two-year-old memo without checking the file is reckless - an accusation this serious demands verification. That is a jury question, and it is the heart of the case.
2. What is the effect of the Rotary dinner statement?
Read the worked answer
It is the most damaging fact in the case, and it works two ways.
Independently actionable. The dinner statement is a fresh publication to thirty people who had no interest in Nadia's employment history. Publication is established beyond dispute, and slander per se (imputing a crime) means no special harm must be shown.
It destroys the privilege. A qualified privilege is lost by excessive publication - telling people who have no legitimate need to know. Rotary members have no common interest in a job reference. The privilege that might have protected the reference call does not reach the dinner table.
Downstream repetition. The neighbor's retelling is generally attributable to Wills if it is the natural and probable consequence of the original publication. Repetition by a third party does not automatically break the chain when the original speaker could foresee it.
So Nadia has a much cleaner claim arising from the dinner than from the reference call. A strong answer separates the two publications and applies privilege only to the first.
3. What must Nadia prove to recover presumed and punitive damages?
Read the worked answer
Two different standards govern, and they should not be merged.
Presumed damages. Because the statement imputes a crime, it is slander per se, and harm to reputation is presumed - Nadia need not trace specific lost income. On a private-figure, private-concern matter, the Supreme Court has permitted presumed damages without a showing of actual malice, though the qualified privilege question must still be overcome on its own terms. In a jurisdiction that has layered actual-malice requirements onto presumed damages, her $8,000 lost offer would be the fallback measure.
Punitive damages. These require actual malice - knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard - and usually clear and convincing proof. For the reference call, Wills's honest misreading is likely negligence, not malice. For the Rotary dinner, the calculus changes: repeating a theft accusation casually to a room of strangers, after the employer's own file had already been misread once, comes much closer to reckless disregard.
Practical upshot. Nadia's compensatory claim is strong; her punitive claim lives or dies on the dinner, not the reference call.