Not much legal risk at all about giving an opinion.
Probably not, but anyone here who has been in a position to give a reference on behalf of any corporation in North America with a lawyer on staff will give you the same story.
Their company told them that there is legal risk in saying anything other than years of service, job title... Not that there is legal risk, but that the company they work for told them there is risk. And it's worth saying even frivolous litigation is a risk they consider, it's costly, wasteful and can damage reputation.
smaller companies without regular legal council might be a different story, i don't know.
Last edited by #-3; 09-15-2025 at 10:51 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
Sounds like a company policy and nothing more. You can say anything you want that’s truthful. It’s not illegal to say more than the bare minimum.
Well, this is literally why I asked if the Flames would be legally allowed to say anything to any of the teams that may have reached out. I now understand that "for legal reasons" is the correct term, as it may not be illegal but (unless a law has been broken) it's certainly not advised to discuss anything negative about a former employee with another party.
I like to ask questions when I don't fully understand something.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
Probably not, but anyone here who has been in a position to give a reference on behalf of any corporation in North America with a lawyer on staff will give you the same story.
Their company told them that there is legal risk in saying anything other than years of service, job title... Not that there is legal risk, but that the company they work for told them there is risk. And it's worth saying even frivolous litigation is a risk they consider, it's costly, wasteful and can damage reputation.
smaller companies without regular legal council might be a different story, i don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
Well, this is literally why I asked if the Flames would be legally allowed to say anything to any of the teams that may have reached out. I now understand that "for legal reasons" is the correct term, as it may not be illegal but (unless a law has been broken) it's certainly not advised to discuss anything negative about a former employee with another party.
I like to ask questions when I don't fully understand something.
I have literally given fulsome references when asked and I am at a law firm. And I wouldn't hesitate to give a negative comment if I felt it was honest.
If I was the Chicago Blackhawks and someone phoned about Brad Aldrich, should I just give dates of employment and position?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
Civil law. The reason almost every sophisticated organization has implemented this policy is to avoid getting sued for defamation by former employees. Once a reference starts giving opinion based information, you run the risk of saying something that can not be objectively verified.
We can debate the likelihood of a former employee being successful in proving defamation, but a standard, consistent policy takes most of that risk off the table.
I'm well aware of civil law . And saying something that cannot be objectively verified is pretty difficult to be sued over. The onus of proof would be on the ex-employee.
I'm well aware of civil law . And saying something that cannot be objectively verified is pretty difficult to be sued over. The onus of proof would be on the ex-employee.
Are you?
You seem to be overly pedantic on this point, several posters have explained exactly why majority of organizations have this policy and it is 100% for legal reasons. These policies don’t exist for no purpose.
The Following User Says Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
You seem to be overly pedantic on this point, several posters have explained exactly why majority of organizations have this policy and it is 100% for legal reasons. These policies don’t exist for no purpose.
They more or less do exist for non-legal reasons if what one says in the reference is truthful. Might be risk management around having someone who just makes up stuff and lies in a reference but there is no legal reason to have a policy where you do not give references.
You seem to be overly pedantic on this point, several posters have explained exactly why majority of organizations have this policy and it is 100% for legal reasons. These policies don’t exist for no purpose.
Yes, I am well aware of "civil law". LOL.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
You seem to be overly pedantic on this point, several posters have explained exactly why majority of organizations have this policy and it is 100% for legal reasons. These policies don’t exist for no purpose.
It's because people suck and they say incorrect things. Now it doesn't mean someone's going to make bank, but you always have idiots that like to file statements of claims because hey why not.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
Someone posted incorrect information, namely that companies are legally only allowed to give bare bones reference letters.
Two lawyers corrected that comment to say its not illegal.
Why are so many people responding with "well actually, hypothetical, hypothetical, you don't know law"
Lets move on.
It is not illegal to give a fulsome reference.
Many companies choose not to do so, for a variety of reasons including civil liability - not illegality - which may or may not be proven.
Everyone's dignity remains intact.
____
A related note, this is why i was kicked off the Legal Advice Canada subreddit.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
To be honest, someone giving a reference like when I was hiring would be a huge red flag. Meaning I wouldn't hire them.
At any rate, I really hope whatever happened wasn't as horrible as it could be, and that the Flames org had no idea, and it didn't happen under their watch.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
It's very common practice in the corporate world to tell managers or anyone asked to provide references, that you cannot comment on their performances, skills, or if you think they are worthy hire.
It's primarily about risk, they don't want any accusations that you as a representative of a company contributed to unfounded slander towards a person, or that you set up competitor up with a bad hiring decision by providing bad information. So you are coached to only state only a few facts, date of employment, position....
Of course anyone can make claims about anyone, but there is always legal risk if those claims carry consequences for the person, and you cannot provide justification for the claim.
Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but that is the first time I've ever heard that. In the times that I have asked for references from former colleagues, or have provided references, it's with colleagues who will advocate for me and vice versa. Isn't that the whole point of providing references? Hell, Linkedin even has a public recommendations section for this exact purpose.
If anything, just a little surprised at that comment as it's never come up in my career ever.
Back to the Mitch Love issue, knowing only what we know now, IMO kind of in bad form for whoever provided the "negative reference" to do so during a job recruitment process. If it is worthy of league scrutiny, why didn't they present it to the NHL before?
Last edited by yourbestfriend; 09-16-2025 at 12:13 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to yourbestfriend For This Useful Post:
Frank Seravalli said, near the end of his podcast, that an allegation has been made by a woman who had a former relationship with Mitch Love, and this is not a new allegation.
Frank Seravalli said, near the end of his podcast, that an allegation has been made by a woman who had a former relationship with Mitch Love, and this is not a new allegation.
Curiosity got the better of me and I had to google Mitch Love's ex girlfriends and got nothing (don't pay attention to the AI overview, it is wrong). However I discovered that his wife's name is Joy... Joy Love. That's awesome!
Curiosity got the better of me and I had to google Mitch Love's ex girlfriends and got nothing (don't pay attention to the AI overview, it is wrong). However I discovered that his wife's name is Joy... Joy Love. That's awesome!
That sounds like the name of the First Lady of a Cult.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but that is the first time I've ever heard that. In the times that I have asked for references from former colleagues, or have provided references, it's with colleagues who will advocate for me and vice versa. Isn't that the whole point of providing references? Hell, Linkedin even has a public recommendations section for this exact purpose.
If anything, just a little surprised at that comment as it's never come up in my career ever.
It's definitely a thing. My wife who worked at that company with the scallop - only thing you could get was an acknowledgement of work history and roles.
But I'm sure people did anyhow. Not everybody knows the rules.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
. And saying something that cannot be objectively verified is pretty difficult to be sued over. The onus of proof would be on the ex-employee.
