Something like that does seem to be what’s the case (see discussions upthread). No one has confirmed that that is the law CFI is referencing, but it’s a good candidate.

Take this with a grain of salt because this is based on what I remember from second-hand information about other cases quite a long time ago.

In New York, provably true statements are protected from defamation suits etc., just as in the rest of the US. HOWEVER, when an employee sues, it seems that in practice, the burden of proof ends up being on the employer, and the standard of proof is high. (Regardless of what the burden of proof is supposed to be legally.) So lawyers always advise employers not to say anything unless they’ve got a stack of sworn affadavits, which of course rarely happens.

Right. Like I said myself, the requirement that it be “public” is not the case in California. It doesn’t have to be public. It just has to do harm (and accusations of criminal conduct are statutorily harmful, i.e. you don’t even have to show harm in that case, it is legally presumed), among the other things (e.g., as you point out, public figures also have to show malice, which doesn’t mean mere intent to harm or merely hating someone, but some kind of actual disregard of the truth, and that’s actually the hardest element to prove, and one of the reasons I prefer US defamation law over that of many other countries). Note that non-public figures don’t have to meet that requirement (your third listed; that only applies when the plaintiff is a public figure).

(Or so I understand it. This isn’t legal advice, just a citizen’s understanding of the law he is subject to.)

You said that multiple sources have confirmed that your understanding of New York law is correct.

Read the comment thread above. This gets discussed and possibilities are raised as to what law they might actually be referring to and how much might be CFI engaging in CYA. Not a resolution, but it suggests there is uncertainty as to just what exactly the law requires vs. necessitates. Although the outcome is the same, and CFI is hiding behind it either way.

Certainly I’d love to have the law identified (that’s why my article asks people to ask and find out).

That is not a solution. That’s duct tape and bubblegum on a defective pipe.

Slight nit.

False claims are not illegal in most contexts. Libel is illegal but has to be both *public* and defamatory.

My understanding of US libel and slander law is that the claimant needs to show three things: 1- The communication significantly harmed his reputation (esp. for future employment and a couple other things). 2- The communication is false. 3- The accused knew it was false and published it anyway (or the accused demonstrated a reckless disregard in determining whether it was truth). The above quote misses the third prong which is AFAIK an important part of most libel and slander in the US.

Of course, my understanding is the situation is drastically different in other western countries. Thank goodness for the US first amendment, and fourteenth, and relevant case law!

At best, I think, CFI could be saying that commenting on the work of former employees opens them to liability if the wrong thing is said (which is true enough), so company policy is to only give out dates of employment. But that does not seem to be what CFI is claiming.

Unless I’m missing something. You said that multiple sources have confirmed that your understanding of New York law is correct. Nolo is usually spot-on, but they could have made a mistake. Maybe you could ask your sources for a citation to a statute or case? Give me a citation and I’d be happy to look it up.

The “actual law” is New York defamation law which lacks statutory protection for employers.

If this is the law that CFI is hiding behind (and that link does not establish it is; remember, that article only talks about NY defamation law, not employee privacy law), then one can say they are engaging in a necessary legal protective behavior because even true statements are not reliably protected from defamation suits in New York. Or so it would seem. (See comments elsewhere in this thread for other ways to look at it.)

But if this is not the law CFI is hiding behind, but some other, then this is moot.