New hire and past employers
- Thread Starter Bruce
- Start date
cbg
Super Moderator
Any information they want as long as it is true, they have a valid and good faith reason to believe it is true, or it represents their honest and supportable opinion. They cannot give any information that is deliberately false or misleading.Very, very limited industry specific exceptions exist.
If you are referring to the myth that they are only allowed to provide dates of employment, job title and (depending on where you heard it) salary, that is exactly what I just called it - a myth. No truth to it in any state.
If you are referring to the myth that they are only allowed to provide dates of employment, job title and (depending on where you heard it) salary, that is exactly what I just called it - a myth. No truth to it in any state.
cbg
Super Moderator
If you are looking for a law that says, employers are allowed to say xxx, that's not how it works. An action is considered legal unless there is a law that makes it illegal. So there doesn't have to be a law giving an employer permission to give out information; it's enough that there isn't a law that says they can't. However, here's an article from a legal site explaining what can and cannot be said.
California Reference Law
California Reference Law
I do appreciate you responding, however I'm getting conflicting responses from a different source, stating that in the state of California a current or ex employer can only answer certain questions, such as, is the employee re-hireable, last rate of pay start date and last date of employment, and duties of the employees last position. As for a city, state Or government employment different laws apply.
cbg
Super Moderator
Ask your other source to post a link to the law that says so.
If he actually does so, re-post it here.
If he actually does so, re-post it here.
cbg
Super Moderator
It's coming from close to 40 years of multi-state, HR experience. What is your other sources's information?
I already explained how the law worked and posted a link to an article on a legal site supporting my stances. Where is your other source's information coming from and what is that source?
I already explained how the law worked and posted a link to an article on a legal site supporting my stances. Where is your other source's information coming from and what is that source?
cbg
Super Moderator
I looked at the state labor commission and it does not say what you claim. Post a link.
zddoodah
Well-Known Member
Your post provides no reason to believe the past or current employer is not allowed to give any information that consists of opinions and/or true facts.
I'm not sure what you expect anyone to say about this. However, the following point made by "cbg" is well-taken and accurate: "An action is considered legal unless there is a law that makes it illegal. So there doesn't have to be a law giving an employer permission to give out information; it's enough that there isn't a law that says they [sic] can't." If someone else is telling you that some law prohibits communicating anything other than X, Y and Z, then that person should be prepared to cite the law or regulation that supports the statement. If that person is unable to cite the law, then that should tell you something about his/her credibility.
Different laws may apply.
Ummm...there's no such thing as "the California state labor commission." There is a California Labor Commissioner. Her name is Julie Su. The agency she heads is called the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE"), which is a division of the California Department of Industrial Relations.
What link? The only prior link provided in this thread is to Nolo.com, which is a privately operated web site and not affiliated with the State of California.
I'd love to read your link to the California state labor commission on this..... so please do continue the conversation and post your link. I am always wanting to learn!
eta: it is possible that what you are reading is THAT state agency's POLICY on references rather than state law. Any employer can limit and say less than the law allows (with certain exceptions that lead to negligent references)
army judge
Super Moderator
If a person asks a question, the other person might limit her answer, or blab her guts out.
Either way, you'll probably never be able to prove that Loretta, your former employer, said this and that about you to Leroy, your prospective employer.
In California, as in most states, employers are protected from liability for certain types of information they provide in response to reference checks from potential employers.
If a former employer acts maliciously towards you, costing you to lose job opportunities because of her/his malicious or untruthful responses, you might potentially have a legal claim.
You are free to discuss your concerns with one of California's thousands of licensed attorneys.
California employers enjoy a qualified privilege when they provide reference information to future employers.
An employer is immune from liability for defamation, as long as the employer provides truthful information to a prospective employer and acts without malice towards a former employee.
California law specifically states that this protection extends to statements about job performance, qualifications, and eligibility for rehire.
However, it does not protect statements about an employee's constitutionally protected speech or activities, nor statements about an employee's union or other activities.
An employer is protected if its statements are based on truthful information. The employer could be sued if it knows the statements are false or acts with reckless disregard for the truth.
California case law also subjects employers to liability for not providing enough information about an employee, if they choose to provide a detailed reference.
For example, a school district gave a glowing recommendation for a vice principal who had in fact been accused of sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior with students.
The reference provided unconditional praise for the employee, recommending him "without reservation."
When the employee was hired by a new school district and again accused of sexual misconduct with a female student, her parents were allowed to sue the former school district.
Although the district was under no obligation to provide a reference for the employee in the first place, once it chose to do so, it had a duty not to misrepresent the facts.
California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017) 1723. Qualified Privilege (Civ. Code, § 47(c)) :: Justia
Job References & Hiring: What can employers say in California?
Employee's Wrongful Termination And Defamation Claims Were Properly Dismissed | California Employment Law Update
Ask a Question
Share this page
