Case against Er's who misrepresent Employment History

[CurtJ.]

From time to time the question arises about Employers who misrepresent a former employee's history by way of a reference. This has lead most Employers to simpyl give name, rank and serial number. Well, a NJ Appellate Division case recently reaffirmed the standard in ruling against an Employer.

I post it here for FYI type info. You should obviuosly not rely on same without consulting an attorney and etc.

Singer v. Beach Trading Co., 379 N. J. Super 63 (App. Div. 2005)
Unanimous Decision by Appellate Division, stating an Employer could be held liable for negligent misrepresentation of former employee's work history where (1) the inquiring party clearly identifies nature of inquiry; (2) the employer voluntarily responds and thereafter unreasonably provides false or inaccurate info; (3) the person providing the info is acting within the scope of their employment; (4) the recipient of the info relies on same info to make an adverse employment decision against Plaintiff; and (5) plaintiff suffers quantifiable damages as a result of the false or inaccurate info provided.

For search terms, this post should show up for: false reference, negligent reference, wrong reference, employer lying, false information, neutral reference, bad reference, damages for bad reference, wrongful work history, false work history, damages for wrong work history.

FYI, and don't shoot the messenger,

Curt J.

[cbg]

No shooting required.

I don't think anyone here has ever argued that an employer is not liable for either false or negligent references. If an employer knowingly or negligently provides false information that damages the employee, they SHOULD be held liable.

I have, and so have the other posters here, stood up for an employer's right to provide a negative opinion when they honestly feel it justified. Naturally everyone who posts here feels that they were the best employee that ever walked on water. That doesn't mean the employer is obligated to agree.

[CurtJ.]

Correct, the case wasn't new ground per se and its holding was generally undrstood, but rather (for NJ) it was a clear and concise rehash of the law which will likely become the seminal case on this issue. Meaning, in the future, should this issue arise, this will be the "go to" case.

It does seem to protect the Employer's right to provide a negative job reference if justified where it states (my paraphrase) "unreasonably provides false or inaccurate info". It seems a lot of the issues will be when/where an employer is unreasonable in its belief as to what it says/said.

Just thought I'd post it for anyone in the future as a quick go to case.

Curt J.