Judge dismisses worker’s defamation suit over employer’s negative job reference

The worker alleged the file was later passed to a prospective employer during a background investigation, and that he “was denied a federal position” because of it. He said he suffered “loss of employment, hardship financially, hardship emotionally,” and a “professionally ruined” name, and he asked for damages “not less than $750,000.” Along with defamation, he raised false light invasion of privacy, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with prospective employment. 

The court dismissed every claim with prejudice, which means the worker cannot bring them again. 

For HR, the reasoning matters more than the result. The judge relied on qualified privilege, a long-standing protection for employers responding to reference requests. An employer asked by a prospective employer for information about a person “is entitled to the defense of qualified privilege,” the court wrote, even where the answer might otherwise look defamatory. To get around that protection, a plaintiff has to plead facts showing the employer acted with malice. A bare, conclusory claim of malice, the court said, is not enough. 

The judge also found the statements were not defamatory to begin with. Comments questioning a worker’s performance, the court noted, do not “rise to the level of being odious, infamous, or ridiculous.” As the opinion put it, “it is customary for prospective employers to inquire about a prospective employee’s work performance.” 

The takeaway for HR is practical. In this jurisdiction, honest, performance-based responses to reference checks sit on solid legal ground, provided they are not driven by malice. It also underlines a familiar point: what lands in a personnel file, and who sees it, still calls for care.