Don’t defame someone in your e-mail messages

Ronald Harrington had just been hired by a company called WesTower. He had previously been employed at LeBlanc International Limited. On the 26th of September 2005, Rick Sullivan, who was vice president of broadcasting manufacturing for Radian, which happens to be a major competitor of WesTower, sent an e-mail message to Mr. Jason Wade, who was the director of operations for WesTower (the company that Mr. Harrington had just joined). Sullivan’s e-mail referring to Mr. Harrington stated in part:

“Yep, George told me he fired him for cooking the books. That’s why I said brave. Never took anything just tried to hide 3 million in losses so George wouldn’t find out. Actually did manage to conceal the losses for two years. Probably means he has a fairly good knowledge of accounting & artistic business practices. Not sure I’d want that on my resume though.”

The “George” referred to in that particular e-mail message was in fact Mr. George Patton, who was Mr. Harrington’s previous employer at Leblanc. Mr. Wade communicated this e-mail to Mr. Harrington, who then communicated it to George Patton. Mr. Patton then e-mailed Mr. Sullivan on October 4, 2005 at 3:41 p.m. with a copy to Mr. Harrington, stating in part:

“I am in possession of an attachment from an e-mail you sent to someone that ended up in the hands of Ron Harrington who has passed it on to me. Ron is obviously upset over the contents of the e-mail which is slanderous and quotes me as saying things which I never said to you or for that matter to anyone. Your e-mail is completely false and unless you send a retraction to me I will seek legal advice. I quote the part of the e-mail I have been given. (quoting the defamatory portion noted above)

Mr. Patton then went on to say in his e-mail to Rick Sullivan;

“Rick there is no way you heard any of the many accusations you quote above from me. No one in my company has ever accused Ron of cooking the books, hiding any losses or artistic business practices. This is malicious gossip on your part and sadly from a person of your position at Radian, somewhat embarrassing.”

Immediately following Mr. Patton’s e-mail to him, Mr. Sullivan replied by an e-mail dated October 4, 2005 at 3:51 p.m., directed to Mr. Patton, with a copy to Mr. Harrington. In that e-mail Mr. Sullivan stated:

“Yes George, you are correct. My sincere apologies for engaging in as you so well put it ‘pure gossip’. My apologies to you Ron as well. I offer no excuse. A thoughtless moment.”

Minutes later, at 3:56 p.m. on the same date, Mr. Patton replied as follows:

“Rick, may I suggest you also inform all those you sent the original e-mail to with the same message. Thanks for getting back to me on this matter so quickly.”

It appears that the only recipient of the original defamatory e-mail was in fact Mr. Jason Wade (who shared the e-mail with Mr. Harrington, who then communicated it to Mr. Patton).

Now at this juncture of this piece, I want to say that if you defame someone and that person implies that he might sue you, you would be wise to retract your statement if there is no truth in it. If your retraction is sincere and is sent to everyone who received it, in most cases; that ends the matter.

That same day, October 4, 2005, and minutes later at 4:11 p.m. Mr. Sullivan sent an e-mail to Mr. Harrington. In that e-mail he stated:

“I am sorry. Gossip in our business is something we troll continuously for hints at what our competitors are up to and to see if we can gain some advantage. That is not an excuse of course, maybe just a bit of an explanation. There were and are many rumours circulating about your departure, and I should not have passed any of them on. After a thoughtless moment, I sit here now thinking just how I would feel were I on your end. I can assure you it will not happen again and that I have learned another valuable lesson from an old teacher. I hope you can accept my apology. I should not have said those things came from George. He did not (say them). As you know, he is an honourable man and I am sure (he) would not do that. I hope you can accept my apology. I never intended any harm. Nor will I ever bring any such up again.”

Now, let’s study that retraction and see if it is suffice to end the matter once and for all.

I refer you to the following statement in Sullivan’s message sent to Harrington at 4:11 p.m.

“…….There were and are many rumours circulating about your departure, and I should not have passed any of them on…….”

Sullivan used the word, ‘gossip’ in his message and in his first message he clearly defamed Harrington by saying in part; “George told me he fired him for cooking the books.” and later said; “(Harrington) actually did manage to conceal the losses for two years.” and later said about Harrington; “Probably means he has a fairly good knowledge of accounting & artistic business practices.”

This means to anyone reading the message sent at 4:15 p.m. that people at Harrington’s former employment were talking about Harrington’s unfounded wrongdoings. There was no evidence of that actually happening but by using the word ‘gossip’ Sullivan implied that there was. And you know that old adage; ‘where there is smoke, there is fire’.

What Sullivan should have done is send a message to all who had received his original e-mail, stating that he knew of no evidence that Harrington had done those things or was that type of man who would do those things. Instead he tried to justify his original mistake by suggesting that he was acting on gossip alone but in doing so, he simply put more fuel on the fire.

Harrington sued for $50,000 for libel. Because the message was in writing, it was libel. If he had said it on the phone, it would have been slander. Because libel has a way of lingering about, it is a more severe form of defamation of character and thusly, is more deserving of a higher award for damages.

Although Mr. Harrington claimed he suffered to some degree, to state the obvious, without some expert evidence to corroborate the plaintiff’s claims of physical and emotional stress, any damages for same would be modest indeed or perhaps denied completely after all; his reputation at WesTower hadn’t suffered since his employer thought Sullivan’s e-mail message was unfounded.

At one point in the trial, the parties agreed that the damages that would be appropriate would be $5,000 plus costs. The parties then asked the judge to decide what the costs should be.

The judge in his decision, said; “In sum, I take into account all the factors enunciated in Rule 57 that must guide the court in determining an award of costs in an action, together with the jurisprudence that focuses on the principles of fairness and reasonableness. I remind myself as well that this was an action in accordance with the simplified procedures provisions of the Rules of Practice which resulted in a settlement that was well within the regime of the small claims court. Based upon the “uncontested evidence” that apparently would have been called at trial, the settlement seems very reasonable and perhaps slightly generous. Taking all of the above factors into account, as well as the principle of “proportionality”, I direct that the defendant Rick Sullivan shall pay to the plaintiff Ronald Harrington costs in the amount of $2,800 inclusive of disbursements and GST. No costs shall be paid by Radian. Costs payable by Mr. Sullivan shall be paid forthwith.”

Sullivan learned two valuable lessons, the first lesson being; be sure of your facts and don’t use gossip to support your conclusion and second, make sure that your apology doesn’t leave anyone in doubt that the person you have defamed; is entirely and fully innocent of any wrong doing. This Sullivan failed to do and it cost him $7,800 plus what ever his lawyer billed him.

Many people communicate in email and texting as if they are having a conversation, however something written in our e-mails casually can blow up in our faces when there's a written record. Things that might have been meant in a joking manner can also get taken out of context.

We generally think twice before we say certain things in a letter, but making statements in our e-mail, it just seems to come out as easily as words come out of our mouth; which is what makes it even more dangerous and harmful because it is in written form.