Defamation In The Workplace: A Risk Every Employer Should Know About

When businesses think about defamation, the instinct is to think of newspaper headlines or social media controversies involving public figures. In practice, some of the most damaging and costly claims arise far closer to home - inside the workplace itself. From a carelessly worded reference letter to an ill-judged message sent over Microsoft Teams or WhatsApp, Irish employers face a real and frequently underestimated exposure in this area. It is worth understanding where that exposure arises and what can be done about it.

Where Claims Tend to Arise

References are perhaps the most obvious flashpoint. Where an employer provides a reference that is inaccurate, exaggerated or motivated by personal animosity rather than honest assessment, the former employee may have grounds for a defamation claim. Irish law treats the giving of a reference as a privileged occasion, but that protection has its limits, as discussed below.

Disciplinary and performance management processes carry similar risks. Where allegations about an employee’s conduct or capability are recorded in writing and shared more widely than the circumstances require, the employer may find itself exposed. Circulating sensitive information beyond those who genuinely need it, whether by email, Slack, Microsoft Teams or WhatsApp, can be enough to satisfy the publication requirement for a defamation claim.

Under the Defamation Act 2009 (as amended), the definition of “statement” is deliberately broad and includes electronic communications, visual images, sounds and any other method of signifying meaning, as well as statements published on the internet. Messages sent on Microsoft Teams channels, Slack workspaces or WhatsApp group chats are therefore firmly within scope. 

A Warning from the WRC

A case before the WRC illustrates how quickly things can escalate. An employee at a nursing home was accused of theft in respect of goods she had, in fact, purchased under a staff discount scheme. The accusation was recorded in writing. She brought a constructive dismissal complaint before the WRC and ran a parallel defamation action in the Circuit Court. The Adjudication Officer noted that a simple receipt would have resolved the matter at the outset. A damaging, unverified allegation, recorded in writing and not promptly addressed, can generate litigation on multiple fronts simultaneously and at considerable cost, even where the underlying facts were, from the outset, capable of straightforward resolution.

Vicarious Liability and the Risk for Organisations

Employers face two distinct heads of liability. They can be directly liable for defamatory statements made by managers, HR personnel or directors in the course of running the business. They can also be vicariously liable for statements made by employees or officers acting on the organisation’s behalf, even where the employer had no direct involvement in the publication.

The Court of Appeal decision in Gordon v The Irish Racehorse Trainers Association [2022] IECA 303 is instructive. The court upheld findings that the IRTA was liable for defamatory statements made by its officers across multiple publications, the jury having found that those statements were made without honest belief in their truth as part of an orchestrated campaign against the plaintiff. A jury in the High Court awarded damages of €300,000, comprising €200,000 in general damages together with €50,000 aggravated and €50,000 exemplary damages. That award was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. The case is a reminder that liability does not depend on the traditional employer/employee relationship. Where an organisation’s own officers make damaging statements on its behalf and with its authority, the organisation itself will bear the consequences. 

Qualified Privilege and Its Limits

Martin v Genesis Psychotherapy and Family Therapy Service Limited (High Court Record No. 2016/4255P)illustrates the risk in a different setting. Following an incident in which the plaintiff had temporarily retained fundraising proceeds at her home, a staff meeting was convened in May 2015, attended by twelve colleagues but held in her absence. Statements were made suggesting that a criminal offence had been committed, that the service faced criminal liability, and that she had mismanaged it. Within a week her position was abolished and she was dismissed. Defamation proceedings were issued the following year. In an interlocutory ruling in 2021, the High Court confirmed one point of practical value to employers: a defendant is entitled to simultaneously deny that the allegedly defamatory words were spoken and rely, in the alternative, on the defences of qualified privilege and truth. That application was decided in the defendant's favour. The substantive proceedings, however, remain ongoing, with more than a decade having elapsed since the staff meeting in question. For employers, the message is clear: language implying criminal conduct or gross misconduct, even at an internal meeting and even where the employer disputes what was said, can crystallise into exactly the kind of costly and protracted litigation this case exemplifies.  

Irish defamation law offers some protection through the defence of qualified privilege, which applies where a statement is made in good faith on a matter of common interest to a person who has a duty or legitimate interest in receiving it. A reference provided honestly to a prospective employer is a typical example.

The difficulty is that qualified privilege will be defeated if the plaintiff can establish that the defendant acted with malice. In this context, malice arises where the person making the statement did not genuinely believe it to be true, or where they were reckless as to its truth or falsity. Employers who embellish, exaggerate or act out of personal animosity when making statements about employees take on considerable risk.

The Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 (“2026 Act”) does introduce a specific new and narrowly drawn defence covering inquiries as to whether a person paid for or obtained goods or services or had in their possession goods or proof of payment for them. Its most obvious application is in retail and commercial settings, though it is not confined to them. In principle, it would have assisted the employer in the case described above, where the dispute arose directly from a question about whether goods had been properly purchased under a staff discount scheme but only where the inquiry was confined to those with a genuine need to know and the person making it had a duty or interest in doing so. It offers no cover for allegations that go beyond a straightforward inquiry of this kind, or that are broadcast more widely than the circumstances require.

Corporate Claimants: A Higher Bar

A significant change introduced by the 2026 Act is that a statement concerning a body corporate is no longer defamatory unless its publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the corporation’s reputation. For bodies corporate that trade for profit, that harm will not be treated as serious unless it has caused or is likely to cause serious financial loss.

This matters where a former employee posts damaging content about a company online. The business cannot simply assume it has a claim. It will need to be able to point to real or likely financial harm, which raises the bar and makes early legal advice all the more important.

Practical Steps for Employers

Businesses should have a clear policy regarding who can provide references and in what form. Managers and HR teams involved in disciplinary processes need to formalise as much as possible the way they communicate including on Microsoft Teams, WhatsApp or email. Defamation risk is an additional reason to ensure that any existing policies on usage of email , internal messaging platforms and social media are fit for purpose, regularly updated and properly understood, complementing rather than replacing those broader governance frameworks. Sensitive information about an employee’s conduct should be shared only with those who have a genuine need to know.

It is also worth noting that the limitation period for bringing a defamation action is one year from the date the cause of action accrued, extendable by the court up to a maximum of two years. This is a short window. Delay in taking advice can foreclose options on both sides, and employers who become aware of a potentially defamatory statement whether made by them or about them should seek legal advice without delay.

Workplace defamation is not a niche area of law. It arises from the same everyday communications and decisions that employers deal with constantly. Getting the basics right is the most effective form of protection.

1. ADJ-00004306, Workplace Relations Commission, published 24 February 2017.
2. Martin v Genesis Psychotherapy and Family Therapy Service Limited [2021] IEHC 449.