Defamation Claim for 10,000 RMB: Court Awards 5,000 RMB in Damages After Employer’s Defamatory Notice

Defamation Claim for 10,000 RMB: Court Awards 5,000 RMB in Damages After Employer’s Defamatory Notice

Case Overview

In this case, a former employee sued his ex-employer for defamation after the company distributed a written notice accusing him of misconduct and later mailed a defamatory statement to his new employer. The court in Eastern China ruled in favor of the employee, finding that the employer’s actions were unlawful and damaged the plaintiff’s reputation. The court ordered the employer to post a corrective notice in the same commercial market where the defamatory notice was originally distributed and to pay the plaintiff 5,000 RMB in moral damages.

Case Background and Facts

The plaintiff, Mr. Feng, began working for the defendant company in February 2009 as a market management staff member. In May 2010, the defendant terminated Mr. Feng’s employment, claiming he had engaged in unauthorized absenteeism and violated company rules. The next day, the company issued a written “Notice” that stated Mr. Feng had failed to meet performance targets and had been fired for “malicious absenteeism.” This notice was distributed by a salesperson throughout a local commercial market in Eastern China where Mr. Feng had conducted business.

Shortly after his termination, Mr. Feng found new employment with another company in the same commercial market. On June 7, 2010, the defendant mailed a package containing the original “Notice” and a “Second Statement” to the manager of Mr. Feng’s new employer. The “Second Statement” described Mr. Feng as a “truly despicable person” and warned that “whoever hires him will be sued by him.” On June 14, 2010, Mr. Feng’s new employer terminated his employment as a direct result of receiving these documents.

Court Proceedings and Evidence

Mr. Feng filed a lawsuit on September 27, 2010, seeking an order for the defendant to eliminate the harm to his reputation, issue a formal apology, and pay 10,000 RMB in moral damages. He initially also sought 7,400 RMB in lost wages but later withdrew that claim.

During the trial, Mr. Feng presented a recorded phone conversation with the company manager, who admitted the company had distributed the notice. He also submitted evidence of his prior successful labor arbitration, which had already found that his termination was unlawful. The defendant denied mailing any materials to Mr. Feng’s new employer and argued that its actions were only meant to inform the public that Mr. Feng no longer represented the company.

The court conducted its own investigation by interviewing the manager of Mr. Feng’s former new employer. The manager confirmed receiving the envelope from the defendant, which contained both the “Notice” and the “Second Statement.” The manager stated this directly led to Mr. Feng’s dismissal.

Court Findings and Judgment

The court held that the defendant’s conduct met all four elements required to establish defamation. The actions were unlawful in both form and content. The court found that the “Notice” contained false statements about Mr. Feng’s work performance and attendance. The “Second Statement” included language that was plainly intended to degrade and humiliate the plaintiff. The court determined that these actions were sufficient to lower the public’s opinion of Mr. Feng and caused him actual harm, including the loss of his new job.

The court ordered the defendant to post a corrective notice in the same commercial market where the defamatory notice was originally distributed, subject to court approval of the content. The court also awarded Mr. Feng 5,000 RMB in moral damages, finding his original request for 10,000 RMB to be excessive.

Key Legal Principles

The court applied the standard four-part test for defamation under Chinese civil law: whether the conduct was unlawful, whether there was actual damage, whether a causal link existed between the conduct and the damage, and whether the defendant acted with fault. The court emphasized that employers cannot use false or degrading statements to protect their business interests. Even if an employer believes it has a legitimate reason to inform the public about an employee’s departure, it must do so through lawful means and with truthful statements.

Practical Insights

This case illustrates that employers face serious legal consequences for making false or defamatory statements about former employees, whether distributed publicly or sent directly to a new employer. A prior finding of unlawful termination in a labor dispute can serve as important evidence in a subsequent defamation case. Individuals who believe they have been defamed by a former employer should preserve all evidence, including recordings of conversations and copies of any written statements, and may seek both injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Legal References

General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China: Article 120, Paragraph 1; Article 134, Paragraph 1. Supreme Peoples Court Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Determination of Liability for Moral Damages in Civil Torts: Article 8, Paragraph 1. Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007 Revision): Article 64, Paragraph 1.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.