Download Legal Analysis: Slander Claim Against HR Director and more Lecture notes Advanced Accounting in PDF only on Docsity! C233 Levi the HR Director at National Express Delivery receives a call from Lucinda asking for a reference/background on Jed for a delivery position. Levi describes Jed as what Lucinda assumes is an average employee and when asked if he would hire Jed again, Levi replied, “No.” Lucinda then asks for details to which Levi responds he is not allowed to furnish any details per his employer. Lucinda subsequently thanks Jed for his interest in National Express Delivery Service but tells him another candidate has been selected. Levi later goes to the bar with some friends and proceeds to tell them about the call and how “He would never hire that idiot again, he was a menace, and was a horrible driver because he had four accidents in one year.” One of Jed’s friends overheard the conversation and told Jed what Levi said. Jed then filed suit against Levi and National Express Delivery Services claiming slander because Levi’s reference cost him the job. Which of the following is most true? There is slander because there is malicious intent, and the information was true. Levi could be fired for discussing private company matters, but not found guilty of slander since the information was true and there was no malicious intent. Levi is protected by qualified privilege because the information was true. Levi is protected by the Fourth Amendment. The situation you've described involves a complex legal issue related to defamation, specifically slander. Here's a brief analysis of each of the options you've provided: There is slander because there is malicious intent, and the information was true. Slander involves making false spoken statements that damage a person's reputation. If the information Levi shared was true, it would not typically be considered slander, even if there was malicious intent. Levi could be fired for discussing private company matters, but not found guilty of slander since the information was true and there was no malicious intent. This statement is partially correct. Levi could indeed face disciplinary action from his employer for discussing private company matters. However, the absence of malicious intent does not necessarily protect him from a slander claim if the information he shared was false. Levi is protected by qualified privilege because the information was true. Qualified privilege can protect a person from defamation claims under certain circumstances, such as when the statements were made in good faith
