Your Former Employee Is Posting Damaging Claims About Your Company Online. What Are Your Options?

Your options depend on one question: is what the former employee says false, or is it true and simply unwelcome? In a former employee defamation scenario, a false statement of fact that damages the company can be met with a demand letter, a platform takedown request and, if needed, a claim. A true statement cannot be answered with defamation at all, and pursuing it usually makes things worse. Decide honestly which situation you are in before you do anything else.

Truth is a defence, and it limits what you can do

Defamation protects reputation against false statements, not against true ones that happen to be embarrassing. The Defamation Act recognises the defences of justification (truth) and fair comment: section 14 provides that a defence of justification does not fail merely because the truth of every charge is not proved, if the words not proved true do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges. Section 15 makes a similar provision for fair comment on a mixture of fact and opinion.

If a former employee is accurately describing mismanagement, a safety issue or misconduct they witnessed, a claim will not reach that statement however much damage it does. Pursuing legal action against a substantially true claim usually amplifies it, invites public scrutiny, and can expose the company to a counterclaim or a regulatory complaint that the original post would never have triggered. Statements of opinion are also treated differently from statements of fact, so read each statement closely before you decide.

Former employee defamation where the claims are false

A former employee who fabricates specific factual claims, invents an incident, misattributes a decision or falsely alleges illegal conduct is in the same legal position as any other person making a false statement that damages your company’s reputation. Article 33 of the Constitution protects freedom of expression, but article 33(3) says that in exercising it every person must respect the rights and reputation of others, and article 33(2) excludes certain categories such as hate speech and incitement to violence.

The Defamation Act also addresses slander in a person’s trade or business: section 3 deals with words calculated to disparage a plaintiff in any office, profession, calling, trade or business carried on at the time of publication. Whether online posts are treated as libel or slander, and what remedies are available against a particular defendant, are questions for advice on the specific words and facts.

In a former employee defamation case, the practical difference from a stranger’s fake review is that you already hold a documented employment relationship: personnel records, performance history and the circumstances of the departure. These can be powerful evidence of what actually happened and, if the timing suggests it, of a motive for the false claim. Preserve them, and keep the circle of people who handle them small.

Confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses have limits

A confidentiality or non-disparagement clause in an employment contract or exit agreement can restrain certain disclosures. Do not assume, though, that it will be enforced against every disclosure. A clause aimed at suppressing true disclosures of genuine wrongdoing raises public interest questions, and attempting to enforce it that way can itself become the story. Read the exact wording, check what the former employee actually agreed to, and take advice before relying on it. If your company has no such clause, add one to future agreements, drafted to cover confidential information and not to bar truthful statements about the employment.

What to do before anything is filed

Take these steps in order. First, establish internally and honestly whether the substance of the claim is true, partly true or fabricated, because that determines everything that follows. Second, preserve evidence: capture each post with its web address and date, and note the engagement it has attracted. Third, where claims are false, send a measured cease-and-desist letter identifying the specific false statements instead of a blanket demand to remove everything. Fourth, follow with 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 to address the underlying issue and, where appropriate, publish a factual correction of any genuinely inaccurate details instead of taking action against the person who raised it. If the posts include false personal data about named directors or staff, those individuals may have rights of their own under the Data Protection Act; see our article on whether the Data Protection Act protects your company reputation.

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 known to observers. In any former employee defamation dispute, weigh the legal merits and the public perception separately before pursuing formal action. 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 fight, even when you would win it.

Consider also who speaks for the company. One consistent, calm statement, approved in advance, is better than several staff replying on their own accounts. Instruct staff not to engage with the former employee online, as replies can create new statements for which the company is responsible.