A former employee airing grievances online after leaving is common enough that most companies eventually deal with it. The legal position depends entirely on one question you need to answer honestly before doing anything else: is what they are saying actually false, or is it true and simply unwelcome. The two situations call for completely different responses, and treating a true, if damaging, disclosure as ordinary defamation is a mistake that tends to make the company’s position worse, not better.
Truth is a complete answer, and the courts know it
Defamation protects reputation against false statements, not against true ones that happen to be embarrassing. If a former employee is accurately describing genuine mismanagement, a real safety issue, or an actual instance of misconduct they witnessed, no defamation claim reaches that statement no matter how much damage it does. Pursuing legal action against a substantially true claim usually amplifies it, invites exactly the public scrutiny the company was trying to avoid, and can expose the company to a counterclaim or a regulatory complaint the original post never would have triggered on its own.
Where the claims are actually false, the normal defamation route applies
A former employee who fabricates specific factual claims, invents an incident that did not happen, misattributes a decision, falsely claims illegal conduct, is in the same legal position as any other person making a false statement that damages your company’s reputation. The practical difference from a stranger’s fake review is that you already have a documented employment relationship, personnel records, performance history, the circumstances of their departure, which can be powerful evidence both of what actually happened and of a motive for the false claim, if the timing suggests one.
Confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses have real limits
A non-disparagement or confidentiality clause in an employment contract or exit agreement can restrain a former employee from certain disclosures, but it cannot be used to silence a genuine whistleblowing disclosure or to punish an employee for raising a concern in good faith, and the Employment Act’s protection against victimisation for matters arising from employment does not disappear simply because the employment has ended. A non-disparagement clause aimed at suppressing true, good-faith disclosures is unlikely to be enforced as written, and trying to enforce it that way can itself become the story.
What to actually do before anything is filed
Establish, honestly and internally, whether the substance of the claim is true, partially true, or fabricated, before deciding on a response, since this determines everything that follows. Where claims are false, a measured cease and desist letter identifying the specific false statements, not a blanket demand to remove everything, is usually the right opening move, followed by a platform takedown request if the statements breach the platform’s own policies. Where claims are true or substantially true, the better response is usually addressing the underlying issue and, where appropriate, a factual public correction of any genuinely inaccurate details, rather than legal action against the person who raised it.
The reputational calculation is separate from the legal one
Even a legally sound defamation claim against a former employee can read publicly as a company using its resources to silence a critic, particularly where the underlying workplace dispute is not fully known to observers. Weigh the legal merits and the public perception separately before deciding to pursue formal action, and where the claims are false but relatively minor, a private resolution or a targeted correction request may protect the company’s actual reputation better than a public legal fight would, even where the company would likely win it.
