General Counsel, P.C.

  • Practice Areas
    • Business Law
      • Business Breakups in Virginia
      • Minority Shareholder Protections
      • Emerging Companies
      • Entity Formation
      • Foreign Companies Entering U.S. Market
      • Real Estate and Leases
      • Starting a Business, Licensing & Compliance
      • Registered Agent Services
      • Succession Planning for Business Owners
      • Tax Law Matters
      • Charitable Solicitation Practice Group
      • Intellectual Property
        • Trade Secrets
        • Copyright
        • Trademark
    • Employment Law
      • Employment Documentation
        • Building Your Cornerstone
        • Employee Document Vault
        • Employee Handbook Tuneup Services
        • Guidelines for Hiring or Firing Employees
        • Separation Agreements
      • Drug Testing
        • Drug Testing Your Workforce – Best Practices
        • Laws Affecting Drug Testing Policies
      • Regulatory Issues
        • VA, MD, DC, Rights & Obligations
        • Age Discrimination
        • Americans with Disabilities Act
        • At-Will Employment
        • Fair Labor Standards Act
        • Family Medical Leave Act
        • Pregnancy Discrimination Act
        • Title VII
      • Non-Competition Agreements
        • District of Columbia
        • Maryland
        • Virginia
      • For Employers of Uniformed Services Members
      • Employer Considerations For Government Contractors
      • For Non-Profits
    • Family Law
      • Divorce
        • Grounds for Divorce
          • Fourth Level Menu Sample
        • High Net Divorce
        • Same Sex Divorce
        • Military Divorce
        • Uncontested Divorce
        • Litigation vs. Alternative Dispute Resolution in Divorce
        • Post-Divorce Enforcement and Appeals
        • Alimony and Spousal Support
        • Child Custody
        • Child Support
        • Filing for Divorce in Virginia
        • Divorce Security Clearance
      • Property Division
      • Alimony and Spousal Support
      • Child Support
      • Child Custody and Visitation
      • Marital Agreements
      • International Family Law
      • Domestic Violence and Protective Orders
      • Co-Parenting in Virginia
    • Government Contracts
      • Bid Protests
      • Government Contract Claims and Appeals
      • Getting Government Contracts: Small Business Certification Services
        • 8(a) Small Business
        • HUBZone Small Business
        • SDVOSB Program
        • Veteran-Owned Small Business
        • Women-Owned Small Business
    • Litigation
      • Arbitration, Mediation & Alternative Dispute Resolution Attorneys
      • Commercial & Business Litigation
      • Defamation
      • Employment Disputes
      • Government Contracting Disputes
      • Intellectual Property Disputes
      • Local Counsel
      • Pre-Litigation
    • Estate Planning
      • Estate Planning FAQs
      • Trusts
      • Wills
      • Families With Children
      • Business Succession Planning
      • Asset Protection Planning
      • Celebrity Estate Planning Mistakes
      • Legal Business Contingency Plans
      • Become a Referral Partner
    • Probate Administration
      • Probate is Complex – FAQ and Answers
      • Trust & Estate Litigation
  • About Us
    • Overview
    • Biographies
      • Andrew “Andy” Baxter
      • Matthew Brennan
      • Heba K. Carter
      • Joanna Foard
      • Erika Gnazzo
      • Merritt Green
      • Elizabeth Hart
      • David Kaye
      • Craig Lawless
      • David Proano
      • Evan St. John
    • How We Help
  • Resources
    • Practical Counsel Blog
    • Bid Protest Weekly
    • VetWorking
    • COVID Compliance Plans
    • Virginia COVID Workplace Safety and Health Standards
    • Video Library
    • Webinars
    • Quotes in The News
    • GCPC First Generation Law Student Scholarship
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
  • Make Payments
703-556-0411

Virginia Supreme Court Offers Additional Guidance on Defamation Standard

Friday, 07 May 2021 / Published in Labor & Employment

Virginia Supreme Court Offers Additional Guidance on Defamation Standard

In Bryant-Shannon v. Hampton Roads Community Actions Program, Inc., the Virginia Supreme Court provided additional guidance on the requisite “sting” needed for a statement to be defamatory. The case lays out when a statement is “actionable” and provides examples of statements made in the workplace the court previously determined were not defamatory, because they didn’t have the requisite “sting.”

To make a claim of defamation, a statement must be both false and defamatory to be “actionable.” A statement is defamatory if it tends “so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.” A statement must have sufficient defamatory “sting” to be actionable. The court has held that to have the requisite sting, a statement must contain language that “tends to injure one’s reputation in the common estimation of mankind, to throw contumely, shame, or disgrace upon him, or which tends to hold him up to scorn, ridicule, or contempt, or which is calculated to render him infamous, odious, or ridiculous.” 

In past cases, Virginia courts have held that the implication that an individual may be in violation of an easement, county ordinances, covenant restrictions or breach of contract does not necessarily carry the requisite sting to be an actionable defamatory statement. When considering statements about an individual honestly, Virginia courts have held that context should be considered. When the Virginia Supreme Court specifically considered a statement that an individual was “not totally truthful,” the Court determined that while the statement was “unpleasant,” statements that are “merely offensive or unpleasant” are not defamatory. Thus, the statement that the individual was “not totally truthful” did not have the requisite sting to be defamatory. 

Then in Bryant-Shannon, the Court found that statements about an employee “abusing her paid vacation-sick leave,” did not contain the requisite sting to be defamatory, because it did not harm her reputation as to “lower her in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with her.” Additionally, the court found that the statement was more an instruction from a supervisor to a subordinate and did not accuse the employee of anything. The Court similarly found other statements did not contain the requisite sting to be classified as defamatory when they did not accuse the employee of anything and were instead merely statements between coworkers about office policy or requests from supervisors.

The Court determined that “statements can be made that are offensive, unpleasant, harsh, and critical without necessarily constituting defamation.” Without the requisite sting, statements cannot be actionable defamatory statements.

Determining what rises to the level of defamation, particularly when considering defamation in the workplace, can be difficult. The Court here did offer some guidance about what statements may or may not have the requisite “sting” needed to cross the line and be considered defamatory. As was the case in Bryant-Shannon, if workplace emails consist of solely statements between coworkers or supervisors related to office policies or work requests, language is unlikely to be seen as defamatory. While language may be considered harsh or even offensive, unless statements reach the level of injuring someone’s reputation, deterring others from associating with someone, or holding someone up to “scorn, ridicule, or contempt,” the statement is unlikely to be considered defamatory,

Here, you can find more information about defamation and defamation in the workplace.

For more guidance or information on defamation, particularly defamation in the workplace, contact the employment law experts at General Counsel, PC today at 703-991-7973. Attorneys at General Counsel, PC are specialized in labor and employment law and have experience working with business owners and individuals across Virginia, specifically in Fairfax County, Arlington, Loudoun County, and Prince William.

  • Tweet
Tagged under: actionable, Defamation, False Statements, Liable, sting, Virginia

TOP ARTICLE CATEGORIES

  • BUSINESS

  • COVID-19

  • LABOR & EMPLOYMENT

  • FAMILY LAW

  • GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

  • LITIGATION

Subscribe to Blogs and Updates

Address:

6849 Old Dominion Dr #220
McLean, VA 22101

Hours of Operation:

Mon – Fri, 8AM – 5PM

Phone Number:

+1 703-556-0411


  • HOME
  • ABOUT US
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • DISCLAIMER
  • SITEMAP
  • CONTACT US
  • MAKE A PAYMENT

General Counsel, P.C. BBB Business Review

© 2023 General Counsel, P.C. | Website Design & Development by High Level Thinkers

TOP