Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §34-8-122, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 139, § 1.)
- Hospital personnel director's communication of reasons for discharge of employees to the Georgia Department of Labor was absolutely privileged and the trial court erred in denying summary judgment to the director as to this aspect of the employees' defamation claims. Davis v. Copelan, 215 Ga. App. 754, 452 S.E.2d 194 (1994).
Because statements by a city as an employer to the Department of Labor with respect to the discharged employee's unemployment compensation benefits were absolutely privileged, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 34-8-122(a), and, as such, could not be used to support an at-will employee's defamation claim. Reid v. City of Albany, 276 Ga. App. 171, 622 S.E.2d 875 (2005).
- Superior court's determination in an action for unemployment benefits that an employee was terminated for cause precludes that employee from relitigating the issue in a subsequent action such as one based on employment discrimination. Langton v. Department of Cor., 220 Ga. App. 445, 469 S.E.2d 509 (1996).
Cited in Hightower v. Kendall Co., 225 Ga. App. 71, 483 S.E.2d 294 (1997); Desmond v. Troncalli Mitsubishi, 243 Ga. App. 71, 532 S.E.2d 463 (2000); ComSouth Teleservices, Inc. v. Liggett, 243 Ga. App. 446, 531 S.E.2d 190 (2000); Doss v. City of Savannah, 290 Ga. App. 670, 660 S.E.2d 457 (2008); Wright v. Brown, 336 Ga. App. 1, 783 S.E.2d 405 (2016).
No results found for Georgia Code 34-8-122.