12 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1984–2002 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bratt v. International Business MacHines Corp.green2 sentences2000“An employer has a conditional privilege to disclose defamatory information concerning an employee when the publication is reasonably necessary to serve the employer’s legitimate interest in the fitness of an employee to perform his or her job.” Bratt, supra at 509 . 1996“An employer has a conditional privilege to disclose defamatory information involving an employee when the publication is reasonably necessary to serve the employer’s legitimate interest in the fitness of an employee to perform his or her job.” Bratt v. International Business Machines Corp., 392 Mass. 508, 509 (1984). | 6 | 8 |
Foley v. Polaroid Corp.green2 sentences2002“An employer has a conditional privilege to disclose defamatory information concerning an employee when the publication is reasonably necessary to serve the employer's legitimate interest in the fitness of an employee to perform his or her job.” Foley, 400 Mass. at 94 (quoting Bratt v. International Business Machs. 1994“An employer has a conditional privilege to disclose defamatory information concerning an employee when the publication is reasonably necessary to serve the employer’s legitimate interest in the fitness of an employee to perform his or her job.” Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 400 Mass. 82, 94 (1987), quoting Bratt v. International Business Machs. | 2 | 4 |
Draghetti v. Chmielewskigreen1 sentence1998In none of the cases did the employer publish the defamatory statements to a newspaper of general circulation.” Draghetti v. Chmielewski, 416 Mass. 808, 813-14 (1994) (where police chief gave information regarding the performance of an officer to a newspaper). | 1 | 1 |
Doane v. Grewgreen1 sentence1987See Doane v. Grew, 220 Mass. 171, 176 (1915); Vigoda v. Barton, 348 Mass. 478, 485 (1965); Bratt v. International Business Mach. | 1 | 1 |
Vigoda v. Bartongreen1 sentence1987See Doane v. Grew, 220 Mass. 171, 176 (1915); Vigoda v. Barton, 348 Mass. 478, 485 (1965); Bratt v. International Business Mach. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Galvin v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD
green
1 sentence1984R.R., supra, we recognized that an employer has a conditional privilege to use defamatory language to ascertain the identity of a person who allegedly stole goods from the business. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.