6 ms·

If they call Blizzard checking references, does Blizzard say “we fired them for sexual harassment.”

by JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

Overtonwindow 5y ago
Blizzard won't say that, too much liability.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  What does it mean that there is too much liability? What liability do you have for saying true things? "That person was fired because an investigation conducted by our company suggested they participated in sexual harassment."
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    why say anything when you can just say nothing. they don't care about it that much as long as the offender is gone now
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    Because no corporate investigation has to meet the same standard as a court of law. You can fire someone if you think they did something wrong. But when you make statements, it's possible the employee will claim it is libel and you will suddenly need to prove their misconduct at a higher standard in a court of law. IANAL, but basically it's not worth it. The company already has what they want: Not working with that employee. Anything past that is unnecessary risk.
  - twblalock 5y ago
    Imagine that a previous employer said something bad about you during a reference check, and what they said wasn't true, and it caused you to lose a potential new job. You'd definitely have a good reason to sue them. Now, imagine the same scenario, except what your previous employer said was true. But you sued them anyway. In both cases, you have the ability to sue. In both cases, unless there is some very strong and obvious evidence against you, a judge and/or jury might take your side. From the perspective of one of your former employers, it's just not worth the risk to give details about why someone was separated from a company.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    The liability to Blizzard or the firing company is that the fired employee sues Blizzard, “I did not get these jobs because they tarnished my name to potential employers.”
  - itsdrewmiller 5y ago
    People exaggerate the amount of risk for this kind of thing, but the benefit to the company giving the bad reference is also essentially zero.
    - thakoppno 5y ago
      I agree with both your points. To be honest if the same signal is sent by merely confirming employment dates but not literally disparaging the former employee, I fail to see how there’s any additional legal protection. The implication is tortious interferus in both cases.
      - eru 5y ago
        That's why many companies don't give any details at all, whether positive or negative. This way your line of argument doesn't apply; not from a logical point of view and also not from a legal point of view: no signal is sent at all.
        thakoppno 5y ago
        I agree with you too. For the sake of my argument, I was conjuring the scenario where companies give either positive recommendations or bare minimum ones.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - eru 5y ago
    That opens Blizzard up to litigation by the fired employee. At least more than not saying anything. Even if you think something is true, someone else might contest that, and ask a court to decide. Court battles are costly and time consuming.
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > What does it mean that there is too much liability? What liability do you have for saying true things? Problem is, in many countries, it's not a fact until a court has made a judgement. Bearing in mind that the accused employees are technically and legally innocent, you are introducing a few problems. First, the disadvantages of calling these people criminals: 1. They can (and probably will win) sue you for calling them a criminal. 2. The resulting news that a court found against you is a bigger problem. You called someone a criminal, they sued you for it and won. Now you have to deal with the fact that as far as the public goes, you just fired and shamed innocent people. 3. Finally, after the news gets out, all the employees who were laid off in the same round and with same accusations now have legal precedent to challenge your accusations of criminality. And due to precedent, they will almost surely win. Now, the disadvantages of giving only their start/end dates and job title when called: [uhh, I can't think of anything ...] It all boils down to "there is some risk in badmouthing them" vs "there is literally no risk, 0% risk at all, is saying nothing about their behaviour".
intunderflow 5y ago
Not sure if its the same in the USA, but in Europe there are massive legal liability issues to giving a negative reference - most places give no reference or a standard set of terms because of this
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  The U.S. Bill of Rights [1] protects giving negative references. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    which one protects giving negative references
  - etchalon 5y ago
    Personal references are protected, to the extent that liable and slander laws would apply. Any HR person / lawyer will tell you providing a negative review of an employee, let alone with amount of detail, opens you up to liabilities that aren't worth it. As an employer, I've been told that, if called, I should only provide the date a person started with the company, the date a person left, their starting and ending salaries (murky now given salary history laws) and whether they'd be eligible to be re-hired. I ask any employee we fire for cause not to list us as a reference.
    - CheezeIt 5y ago
      Will they give you a magnitude attached to those liabilities? Anybody can falsely sue for defamation, so you need an average cost value beyond the mere possibility of lawsuit to get a true representation of the problem.
      - xsmasher 5y ago
        The cost may be minimal, but the value of giving a bad reference is zero.
gnicholas 5y ago
In general, employers just confirm the dates of employment. Saying more than that potentially opens them up to legal liability.
VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
definitely not. If they're smart they will only provide confirmation about whether or not the person worked there, what their title was, and maybe if they would hire them again. but that's it
eloisius 5y ago
The will not. They will confirm start and end dates, ask if the termination was voluntary, and may ask if they would hire them again in the future.
- eru 5y ago
  And even some 'voluntary' termination might be a case of somebody being managed out or asked to leave.

If they call Blizzard checking references, does Blizzard say “we fired them for sexual harassment.”

Overtonwindow 5y ago

Blizzard won't say that, too much liability.

ALittleLight 5y ago
What does it mean that there is too much liability? What liability do you have for saying true things? "That person was fired because an investigation conducted by our company suggested they participated in sexual harassment."
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  why say anything when you can just say nothing. they don't care about it that much as long as the offender is gone now
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Because no corporate investigation has to meet the same standard as a court of law. You can fire someone if you think they did something wrong. But when you make statements, it's possible the employee will claim it is libel and you will suddenly need to prove their misconduct at a higher standard in a court of law. IANAL, but basically it's not worth it. The company already has what they want: Not working with that employee. Anything past that is unnecessary risk.
- twblalock 5y ago
  Imagine that a previous employer said something bad about you during a reference check, and what they said wasn't true, and it caused you to lose a potential new job. You'd definitely have a good reason to sue them. Now, imagine the same scenario, except what your previous employer said was true. But you sued them anyway. In both cases, you have the ability to sue. In both cases, unless there is some very strong and obvious evidence against you, a judge and/or jury might take your side. From the perspective of one of your former employers, it's just not worth the risk to give details about why someone was separated from a company.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  The liability to Blizzard or the firing company is that the fired employee sues Blizzard, “I did not get these jobs because they tarnished my name to potential employers.”
- itsdrewmiller 5y ago
  People exaggerate the amount of risk for this kind of thing, but the benefit to the company giving the bad reference is also essentially zero.
  - thakoppno 5y ago
    I agree with both your points. To be honest if the same signal is sent by merely confirming employment dates but not literally disparaging the former employee, I fail to see how there’s any additional legal protection. The implication is tortious interferus in both cases.
    - eru 5y ago
      That's why many companies don't give any details at all, whether positive or negative. This way your line of argument doesn't apply; not from a logical point of view and also not from a legal point of view: no signal is sent at all.
      - thakoppno 5y ago
        I agree with you too. For the sake of my argument, I was conjuring the scenario where companies give either positive recommendations or bare minimum ones.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- eru 5y ago
  That opens Blizzard up to litigation by the fired employee. At least more than not saying anything. Even if you think something is true, someone else might contest that, and ask a court to decide. Court battles are costly and time consuming.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > What does it mean that there is too much liability? What liability do you have for saying true things? Problem is, in many countries, it's not a fact until a court has made a judgement. Bearing in mind that the accused employees are technically and legally innocent, you are introducing a few problems. First, the disadvantages of calling these people criminals: 1. They can (and probably will win) sue you for calling them a criminal. 2. The resulting news that a court found against you is a bigger problem. You called someone a criminal, they sued you for it and won. Now you have to deal with the fact that as far as the public goes, you just fired and shamed innocent people. 3. Finally, after the news gets out, all the employees who were laid off in the same round and with same accusations now have legal precedent to challenge your accusations of criminality. And due to precedent, they will almost surely win. Now, the disadvantages of giving only their start/end dates and job title when called: [uhh, I can't think of anything ...] It all boils down to "there is some risk in badmouthing them" vs "there is literally no risk, 0% risk at all, is saying nothing about their behaviour".

intunderflow 5y ago

Not sure if its the same in the USA, but in Europe there are massive legal liability issues to giving a negative reference - most places give no reference or a standard set of terms because of this

CheezeIt 5y ago
The U.S. Bill of Rights [1] protects giving negative references. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  which one protects giving negative references
- etchalon 5y ago
  Personal references are protected, to the extent that liable and slander laws would apply. Any HR person / lawyer will tell you providing a negative review of an employee, let alone with amount of detail, opens you up to liabilities that aren't worth it. As an employer, I've been told that, if called, I should only provide the date a person started with the company, the date a person left, their starting and ending salaries (murky now given salary history laws) and whether they'd be eligible to be re-hired. I ask any employee we fire for cause not to list us as a reference.
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    Will they give you a magnitude attached to those liabilities? Anybody can falsely sue for defamation, so you need an average cost value beyond the mere possibility of lawsuit to get a true representation of the problem.
    - xsmasher 5y ago
      The cost may be minimal, but the value of giving a bad reference is zero.

gnicholas 5y ago

In general, employers just confirm the dates of employment. Saying more than that potentially opens them up to legal liability.

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago

definitely not. If they're smart they will only provide confirmation about whether or not the person worked there, what their title was, and maybe if they would hire them again. but that's it

eloisius 5y ago

The will not. They will confirm start and end dates, ask if the termination was voluntary, and may ask if they would hire them again in the future.

eru 5y ago
And even some 'voluntary' termination might be a case of somebody being managed out or asked to leave.