: On 25 Aug 1997 17:10:27 -0400, "poole-allair"I'd have to agree, but in general California employers are becoming increasingly wary of giving out anything more than employment dates and confirming employment. There has been liability imposed for giving "good references" when the employer knew of "bad" information, and there was been liability imposed when it was found that an "improper" motive caused negative informaion to be communicated, even though the prospective employer did not decide on that basis. See Hashimoto v Dalton (Us Ct. of Appeals, 9th Cir.) 97 CDOS 5295 (Case#95-1582795-15960). Many employers feel it is safer to avoid an argument about whether the information was "communicated in good faith" by not giving the information. More specifically there is no statutory law, nor case law, requiring that an employer restrict information to dates and fact of employment, but many lawyers in California are advising their clients to stick to only that information.
wrote: : >My understanding,at least in California, is that by law, an employer can : >only furnish employment dates and confirm that the person was indeed : >employed by the firm. Any "extemporaneous" comments, especially negative : >are prohibited. In misc.legal Hilary B. Miller, Esq. wrote: : That's completely incorrect. Quite to the contrary, California has a : statutory qualified privilege for untrue statements that are : communicated in good faith in connection with employment references.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Be true to your own principles, and hold to them, else complain not when the world runs contrary.
Note: The opinions and descriptions expressed above are mine and are not necessarily endorsed by any other organization.
Copyright © 1998, Diane Blackman