In Sigal Construction v. Stanbury , a project manager sued because statements made by his former employer in the course of providing a reference untruthfully minimized his abilities. The court ruled that:
A) the employer did not defame the former employee because its statements were merely opinions and did not purport to be factual
B) the employer did not defame the former employee because he had consented to having information about him shared with the prospective new employer
C) the employer did not defame the former employee because the statements, although harsh, were truthful
D) the employer defamed the former employee because statements made in references are not subject to qualified privilege
E) the employer defamed the former employee because the employer was recklessly indifferent to the truthfulness of the statements made

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court ruled that the employer had defamed the former employee because they were recklessly indifferent to the truthfulness of the statements made. The employer had made statements that untruthfully minimized the employee's abilities, which led to the employee losing a job opportunity. As a result, the employee was awarded damages. The court ruled that the former employer had defamed the project manager because the statements made in the reference were recklessly indifferent to the truthfulness of the statements made. Therefore, choice E is the best answer.

In Sigal Construction V