Tamer Mamou Vs. Trendwest - Workplace Law Update: Employer Bares Burden of Proof In Defending Defamation Claims

In a July 30, 2008 California Court of Appeal case, a Syrian descendant employee was found to have successfully brought claims of discrimination, retaliation, and defamation allegations against his employer Trendwest. Tamer Mamou was a member of Trendwest's (a timeshare broker) management team who claims that because he took objection to the company's efforts to discourage employees from taking sick and medical leaves of absence, was terminated in furtherance of the company's apparent goal to break up what they deemed to be an "Arab regime". Mamou alleged that post-termination, the company also sought to defame him by stating to other employees and clients that Mamou had misappropriated its customer list and was using the information unfairly to compete with Trendwest.

At trial, Trendwest claimed that its claims against Mamou were privileged in that the company was free to discuss its opinions and concerns regarding Mamou's work performance and post-separation activities within the company. However, under review, the appellate court found that the company could have demonstrated sufficient ill-will against Mamou through alleged discriminatory and retaliatory conduct such that it was quite possible that oral statements made against Mamou and not necessarily based on truth or fact were made with malice or ill-will against Mamou. Because of malice, the employer could not defend Mamou's claims for defamation by relying on employer privilege.

This decision highlights the potential risk of liability employers face when they engage in conduct that can be perceived as defamatory against former employees. To read this lengthy decision in full, click Mamou v. Trendwest, Inc.