There are two types of defamation – libel (written defamatory statement) and slander (oral defamation). Under California law, a claim for defamation requires proof of a false and unprivileged publication that exposes the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation. McGarry v Univ. of San Diego, 154 Cal.App.4th 97, 112 (2007). In the context of employment, the last part of “injury in occupation” is the one that comes into play most often. Typical statements that may give rise to a defamation case involve being falsely accused of theft, fraud, or some other type of crime, such as overbilling / overcharging clients.
Oral defamatory statements to third persons constitute slander. Mann v Quality Old Time Serv., Inc., 120 Cal.App. 4th 90, 106 (2004). To constitute slander, the words spoken must be understood by those who heard them uttered in a slanderous sense. Martin v Sutter, 60 Cal.App. 8, 13 (1922).
The statute of limitations on defamation cases is one year from the date the defamatory statement was most recently published, orally or in writing. A cause of action for defamation accrues at the time the defamatory statement is “published”, that is “when the defendant communicates the defamatory statement to a person other than the person being defamed.” Shively v Bozanich 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1247 (2003).
Making a defamation case in court requires admissible evidence that a defamatory statement was actually made. Thus, hearsay evidence (i.e. simply believing that someone said something without hearing it yourself or not having witnesses to support the case who actually personally heard or read the defamatory publications) is not sufficient to make a case, and pretty much any case based on speculation or second-hand, hearsay rumors will be subject to dismissal.
To be defamatory, the statement in question must be an assertion of fact and not just an opinion. Distinguishing between the two is often not easy, and it has been a subject of significant litigation. The question of whether a statement is reasonably susceptible to a defamatory interpretation is a question of law for the trial court (and not the jury). Smith v Maldonado, 72 Cal.App.4th 637 647 (1999).
Injury to one’s reputation can be every bit as real as any other injury, as many professionals and businesses rely on their reputation for maintaining and promoting their business, and often it’s their most valuable asset, often referred to as goodwill. That’s why there have been quite a few trials of defamation cases in the last few decades, which resulted in significant awards in favor of the parties injured by slander or libel, and who were able to show how those publications likely affected their income and their standing in the relevant community.