By Anita Mazumdar Chambers

---

IMPORTANT: The following article is intended as a general summary of facts and law and not as individual legal advice upon which you should rely or act. Every case is unique and specific. This article represents our firm’s best knowledge as of April 2026.

---

Many laws protect U.S. employees against discrimination, retaliation, and other workplace wrongs. But a lot of these statutes, including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for example, totally exclude up to 15 percent of the workforce: Independent contractors, who don’t qualify as “employees” under the law.

Are you an independent contractor? And if you are, what laws protect you against unfair treatment at work? The short answer is that you still have rights via a patchwork of federal laws, contract law, tort law, and — depending on where you live and work — some potentially powerful state laws.

This article provides an overview of the legal protections that are available to independent contractors who face unjust actions at work. As always, your individual situation is best assessed by an employment attorney.

Am I an Independent Contractor?

First things first: Are you truly an independent contractor? It’s not always easy to tell.

If your pay is reportable to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service via a 1099 form, that’s a sign that the company or person who paid you believes you’re an independent contractor. By contrast, employees generally get W2 tax forms. But your payer/employer may be wrong — and even if you’re an independent contractor under tax law, that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re an independent contractor for other legal purposes.

The definition of “independent contractor” vs. “employee” varies from law to law, state to state, and even among federal agencies. There are a few common principles, however, which can be weighed differently depending on context:

1. The degree of control an employer has over how work is completed. In general, if you control most of the decisions, you are more likely to be an independent contractor.
2. The method of payment. If you are paid a fixed amount for a service, rather than getting an hourly wage or salary throughout the year, you are more likely to be an independent contractor.
3. The degree of independence or separation you maintain from the employer: If you wear your own clothes, use your own tools, and keep your own hours, for example, you are more likely to be an independent contractor.
4. The length and depth of your “employment” relationship — the less you rely on a single job for your income, the more likely you are an independent contractor.
5. And finally, whether you get any benefits like 401(k) plans, paid vacation, or health insurance. If you don’t get any of these, you may appropriately be an independent contractor.

None of this is dispositive, however, and there are other factors that may change the analysis. In the end, only a court can definitively say whether any individual person is an employee or an independent contractor for the purpose of a specific law.

Still, for argument’s sake, let’s say that you’re probably an independent contractor — otherwise, why would you be reading this? What rights do you have?

Let’s look at them, category by category.

Federal Laws That Protect Independent Contractors

Most of the well-known federal workplace statutes — including Title VII, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the American with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act — either don’t apply to independent contractors or offer meager protections to them. However, there are some exceptions and some creative approaches.

Section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act: This isn’t a workplace law, as such, but it works as one. It provides that “all persons … shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts … as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Section 1981 allows independent contractors to sue an employer for treating them differently because of their race or national origin. It isn’t as wide-ranging as Title VII; it doesn’t address sex or religious discrimination, for instance. Still, it offers some basic protections.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act: The ADA’s main employment provision excludes independent contractors. But Title III of the ADA states that “no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” At a glance, this protects mainly customers of businesses that serve the public. But some independent contractors, such as contracting physicians at medical facilities, have used Title III to file suit against their place of employment. As an example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that a doctor “who is not an employee for purposes of Title I” of the ADA still could win under Title III for a hospital’s suspension of his privileges after he revealed that he’d been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act: The Rehab Act is a law that’s mostly parallel to the ADA but that applies to the federal government. Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in access to any program that receives federal funding. Some prominent courts have held that this allows independent contractors to sue federal contractors for discrimination. As an example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a company that provided medical services to the U.S. Air Force could be held liable for refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a contract physician.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Known as SOX, this law protects workers, including independent contractors, from retaliation for blowing the whistle on public companies that they believe have violated securities laws. The U.S. Supreme Court famously held that SOX would protect even a babysitter paid by the executive of a company covered by the law, if the babysitter were to report fraud. Still, SOX isn’t an all-purpose law against retaliation: It applies only to specific instances of whistleblowing about specific wrongdoing. But it’s a rarity among federal laws in its equal protection of employees and contractors.

The False Claims Act: The FCA incentivizes people to report fraud against the U.S. government — and it protects whistleblowers, including independent contractors, who suffer a negative employment action for exercising their rights under the FCA, which can include making purely internal reports about relevant wrongdoing. Like SOX, the FCA applies only to specific employers. If you perform work for a company that accepts federal funds, however, it could provide you with a useful legal tool. Indeed, the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision may suddenly be more powerful now that the U.S. government has loudly declared that FCA liability can attach to “disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment (e.g., hiring, promotions), contracting (e.g., vendor agreements), program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity’s resources.” Retaliation for reporting such discrimination may be found illegal under the statute.

State Laws That Protect Independent Contractors

Independent contractors may have greater protections under state law than under federal law. If you face discrimination or retaliation, therefore, a state court could be where you may find relief. Along with Washington, D.C., at least four states — Maryland, Minnesota, New York, and Rhode Island — broadly protect independent contractors against workplace bias, while at least five more states — California, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington — offer good protection within certain contexts. In other places the situation may be less favorable, less clear, or both. State law is constantly evolving, however, and it’s mostly moving in favor of independent contractors. Meanwhile, some cities and counties are much friendlier than their parent state. New York City affords independent contractors broader protections than does New York State as a whole, for instance. For an up-to-date assessment of your specific circumstances, consult an employment attorney.

As an illustration of how rights can vary between states — and over time — here’s a snapshot of the situation in three jurisdictions around our firm’s home in Washinton, D.C.

Maryland: Since 2019, Maryland’s main anti-discrimination workplace law, the Fair Employment Practices Act, has included “independent contractor” within its definition of “employee.” Maryland independent contractors get full protection against discrimination and retaliation across many characteristics, from race to disability to age to gender identity, effectively filling the gaps left by multiple federal laws.

District of Columbia: The D.C. Human Rights Act always has prohibited a wide range of discriminatory acts by employers, but D.C. courts traditionally read this to require an employer/employee relationship between the parties. Happily, this situation changed in 2022, when the law was amended to cover independent contractors explicitly, taking its interpretation out of judges’ hands.

Virginia: The Virginia Human Rights Act protects “employees” from workplace bias. In their application of the VHRA, state courts have interpreted this to exclude independent contractors. Virginia’s workplace laws have been changing rapidly over recent years, however, so there’s hope for improvement.

Other Protections for Independent Contractors

The law also offers solutions that fall outside the realm of modern anti-discrimination employment statutes. Some practices that are prohibited by Title VII and its brethren have long been illegal under older theories of law, too — especially if the wrongdoing is an egregious form of harassment. Here are some examples.

Tort Law: A tort is a civil wrong — other than a breach of contract — that causes harm, injury, or loss to another person, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the act (the tortfeasor). It allows injured parties to seek compensation, typically monetary damages, through civil lawsuits. Independent contractors can claim that they’ve suffered a legally recognized harm, or tort, due to the actions of an employer. In the workplace context and depending on the state where you live or work, such tort claims may include: harassment; negligent hiring, retention, or supervision of a discriminator or harasser; and infliction of emotional distress, either intentional or negligent. Although some version of “wrongful discharge” is a tort in most states, it’s generally available only to regular employees.

Contract Law: If you have a written contract or a job description that covers your work for an employer, this document could protect you against some workplace bias. Many contracts or job descriptions contain language that prohibits specific types of discrimination, promises accommodation of disabilities, or makes other potentially enforceable promises about “equal employment opportunity.” If you experience prohibited behavior, you might be able to sue (or enter arbitration) to enforce these contractual rights, just as you’d enforce any contract. In addition, you might be able to claim that an employer violated an “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”

Criminal Law: Finally, some types of workplace wrongdoing may be pursued under criminal laws — most notably, hate crimes and intense sexual harassment. You will need the help of a sympathetic prosecutor.

Conclusion

Independent contractors have fewer legal protections against workplace bias than regular employees do, especially at the federal level. This is an unpleasant truth. If you’re an independent contractor, however, you’re not completely unprotected. State laws can be quite powerful, and some federal laws still may apply. There are other channels, too. To start the process, consult an employment attorney.

—–

Anita Mazumdar Chambers is a principal at The Employment Law Group, P.C., a law firm that represents employees in disputes with their employers.

By Anita Mazumdar Chambers

---

IMPORTANT: The following article is intended as a general summary of facts and law and not as individual legal advice upon which you should rely or act. Every case is unique and specific. This article represents our firm’s best knowledge as of April 2026.

---

Social media is an integral part of our lives, shaping the way we share information and engage with the world. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok offer numerous benefits, but they also present challenges when it comes to navigating the delicate balance between personal and professional lives.

You might believe your social media activity is none of your employer’s business, but that’s not always the case. Information shared online can be easily (and quickly) disseminated to a large audience, but it is also not easily removed if it becomes harmful. Anything you post can have an impact on how people perceive you on a personal and professional level.

Employers may be concerned about how your posts might impact their company’s reputation if people online figure out where you work — which anyone curious enough probably can. But to what extent may employers legally act on this interest?

The only US state that is not an at-will employment state is Montana. This gives employers broad freedom to make decisions about their employees’ jobs. Employment laws then set the boundaries of that freedom — like a fence around a field — by defining what employers cannot do rather than what they can. In other words, an employer’s conduct, including the decision to fire you, is typically not considered illegal unless a law specifically prohibits a particular action.

Various federal and state laws set legal boundaries for how employers can respond to employees’ social media activity. These laws provide certain protections, but employees should also keep other practical considerations in mind before hitting “Post.”

Legal Protections

The First Amendment

People might believe the First Amendment shields them from an employer’s wrath if they are upset about their posts. After all, doesn’t the amendment protect your right to speak freely?

Unfortunately, that mostly only applies if you’re a government employee, as the First Amendment is designed to protect individuals from government censorship. A government employer disciplining an employee for social media activity may raise First Amendment concerns. In contrast, a private employer is not the government, so its decisions — such as terminating an employee, demoting them, or denying them a bonus based on a social media post — typically don’t implicate the First Amendment.

Even government employees, however, are not fully protected by the First Amendment when it comes to workplace speech. The right to free speech is intended to allow people to criticize the government and engage in public debate. Therefore, the First Amendment generally only protects employees speaking on matters of public concern, not employees airing personal grievances.

A 1968 case, Pickering v. Board of Education, helped define what counted as “matters of public concern.” In the case, a teacher sent a letter to a newspaper that criticized how the school board allocated public funds. The court considered the letter protected speech because it addressed an issue of public importance.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Connick v. Myers solidified the Pickering decision. It created a two-step test to determine whether the speech of a public employee is protected: First, the speech must involve a matter of public concern, and second, the employee’s interest in speaking on that matter must outweigh the employer’s interest in maintaining an efficient workplace. The court explained that whether an employees’ speech qualifies as a matter of public concern depends on “the content, form, and context of a given statement.”

In Connick, the court held that an assistant district attorney’s disagreement with her supervisor’s decision to transfer her did not pass the test. The employee’s speech didn’t seek to inform the public of any failure to execute governmental duties or any potential breach of public trust, and thus, was not of “public import” or protected.

State Laws

Some states have laws or statutes that protect both government and private employees from being disciplined for what they do outside of work (as long as they’re not breaking any laws, of course).

The California Labor Code, for example, mandates that employers may not retaliate against employees for engaging in lawful conduct during non-working hours away from the employer’s premises. Similarly, New York’s Legal Activities Law prohibits discrimination against an employee because of their legal recreational activities, assuming the activities occur outside work hours, off the employer’s premises, and without the use of the employer’s equipment or other property. This can include actions such as posting photos from a Pride event, expressing support for a political candidate, or sharing information about one’s salary — activities that may be controversial but are still legal.

Some states don’t have laws that specifically address social media but do have retaliation laws that may apply. Retaliation laws protect employees who engage in “protected conduct,” such as reporting discrimination to human resources or raising concerns about potentially fraudulent or illegal activity. A social media post would have to relate to a potential violation of law or public policy for an employee to pursue a retaliation claim; complaining about a boss online doesn’t fall under “protected conduct.”

The employee would also have to prove that their employer saw the post. To constitute retaliation, an employer must be aware of the potential violation, have an opportunity to address the issue, and then instead choose to take an adverse action, such as demoting or terminating the employee. Social media posts often fall short because they are typically private or not directed at the employer, meaning the employer might never receive notice of any violations. An employee who can show the employer did see their post — because it was shared publicly on LinkedIn, for example, or brought to the employer’s attention — may have a plausible (though challenging) basis for a retaliation claim.

The National Labor Relations Act

Social media posts discussing the terms and conditions of your employment might be protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA encourages collective bargaining and protects employees’ rights to improve their working conditions, so actions like discussing your salary with colleagues on a Facebook page would likely be protected.

The NLRA’s protections are extensive. In NLRB v. Pier Sixty, LLC, an employee made an obscene and explicit Facebook post that directly attacked his supervisor, but it was protected because the post referenced union activity and was published to coworkers. The court noted that online forums like Facebook are “a key medium of communication among coworkers and a tool for organization in the modern era.”

However, the NLRA does not provide blanket protection for all speech related to the terms and conditions of your employment. Statements discussing confidential or proprietary employer information, for example, would likely not be protected.

Anti-Discrimination Laws and Speech Protections

Let’s say you post an Instagram story about a religious celebration — your employer cannot then demote or fire you for your posts because it might be sharing details about your religion beliefs. They would essentially be punishing you for expressing your protected traits.

There are several factors that can help you build a solid argument that your employer unlawfully discriminated against you based on any protected speech:

• Employer awareness: Can you show that the decision makers behind the adverse action saw or knew about your social media activity?
• Timing: Did the adverse action occur very soon after your social media post, therefore indicating a possible causal link?
• Pattern of behavior: Did your employer take adverse actions against other employees in your protected class for making similar posts? Or, conversely, did your employer not punish employees outside of your protected class, even though they made similar posts?

Factors to Consider Before Posting

There are several laws in place that protect an employee’s right to engage in social media, but that doesn’t mean it’s a free-for-all where employees can do whatever whenever they want. Employers can draw some reasonable boundaries, and there are other considerations employees should keep in mind when deciding how and when to use social media.

Employer Policies

Some employers have policies that govern employees’ conduct on social media, both during and outside of work. These policies can outline when it’s inappropriate to use social media, whether any conduct is prohibited, and what the consequences are if you violate policy.

You generally agree to a company’s policies when you start working for them. Down the road, maybe you post something on social media that violates the policy and results in discipline. You might decide that you disagree with the policy and that your post shouldn’t be prohibited. Changing your mind later doesn’t change the fact that you agreed to the policy in the first place though. It’s more difficult to challenge a disciplinary action that you were warned of (and agreed to).

In most cases, employers don’t have policies that explicitly mention social media use. Instead, they probably have a policy regarding general employee behavior that may reflect on the employer and its values. A policy might state that employees must maintain a professional demeanor and that any behavior that could damage the employer’s reputation could be subject to discipline. Wearing company gear at a white supremacist rally or posting a hate speech comment on the company’s social media page are often legitimate bases for discipline.

Employer Equipment

A lot of employers have rules about what employees can and cannot do while using company-issued devices. Those devices are company property, so employers have a strong (and usually valid) argument that they can control activity on them, regardless of whether it occurs during work hours or in an official capacity.

Employers have some authority to monitor and search employer-issued devices for reprimandable behavior — with certain limits, such as privacy laws, anti-discrimination laws, and any company policies that restrict how monitoring is conducted.

External Professional Regulations

Your profession or industry may have rules that would limit your social media activity, regardless of your employer. Lawyers, for example, are expected to follow professional and ethical rules to maintain their legal licenses. They’re required to keep client communications and information confidential, so posting non-public information about a case would likely jeopardize their legal license. Health professionals are similarly obligated to protect patient information.

Discipline regarding your professional qualifications (such as suspension or disbarment) is handled by a third party, not your employer. However, your employer may impose their own discipline as well. Employers have a valid interest in ensuring their employees follow all professional regulations. It may be reasonable to reprimand you if your social media post raises compliance concerns or risks the business’s reputation for following professional and ethical standards.

Professional v. Social Accounts

Context matters. The platform you post on, the audience who sees your activity, and how you represent yourself online can all influence how your employer reacts to your social media activity. Sharing a picture of you drinking on Facebook is not the same as posting it on LinkedIn.

On LinkedIn, your primary identity is as an employee. You usually have your employer identified, and the purpose of the platform is to network with colleagues and share your professional updates. In contrast, you likely don’t identify your employer on Facebook, and you limit your audience to friends only. Thus, it’s understandable if an employer expects a certain degree of professionalism on LinkedIn but regards Facebook activity as private conduct.

Legal Advice

The legal landscape on how social media intersects with employment law continues to evolve. You may need the help of an experienced employment attorney to help navigate the protections available to you.

If you’ve been punished at work because of a social media post, contact The Employment Law Group today.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Q: I applied to a job but was rejected because of my social media posts. Is that legal?

It depends. Pursuing any employment-based claim when you are not an official employee can be difficult. For some statutes, legally being an employee is a prerequisite to filing a claim.

Most employers also don’t give explanations for rejecting a job application, making it hard to know if you were declined because of your social media activity or to argue that you were rejected on pretext.

That being said, it is not an open-and-shut case. Some statutes explicitly protect applicants from discrimination, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.[1] You may have a civil rights claim if you can demonstrate a link between your social media activity and the rejection. However, this would only apply if the employer rejected your application for a discriminatory reason, not if it was because your social media presence didn’t resonate with the employer’s values or reputation.

Q: My employer asked for access to my private social media posts. Are they allowed to do that?

Generally, no, but that doesn’t guarantee they won’t see your private posts regardless.

Your employer generally can’t force you to give them access to your private social media accounts, but they might become aware of your posts through some other means. Perhaps a coworker followed you on social media and shared your posts with your employer, or perhaps you used your personal accounts on company devices and your employer saw it while monitoring activity. It’s in your best interests to keep your work and private lives as separate as possible.

An employer may still discipline you for a post that violates its policies or code of conduct — even if it’s posted on a private account — if they come across it somehow.

Q: I post regularly about my personal hobby on a public social media account, occasionally even during the day. Can my employer fire me for this?

Let’s say you post makeup tutorials on an Instagram page and engage directly with followers about tips and tricks. Maybe you have enough followers that you get sponsored for some of your content. Is this cause for termination?

This mostly depends on the type of job you have and whether your employer has any policies dictating your activity during the workday. Some employers are concerned with whether you’re completing assigned work at the expected level, and so minor personal activity during the workday might be overlooked if the employer concludes that it doesn’t interfere with your productivity. Other employers expect their employees to refrain from any personal activity during the workday. In such situations, an employer can legally assert that making non-work-related posts during the workday is cause for termination. Remember, unless a reason for terminating an employee has been made illegal, it is otherwise legal, regardless of how trivial or arbitrary it might seem to the employee.

The bottom line is to be aware of your company’s policies and ensure your conduct is not in conflict with them.

Q: Can my employer fire or demote me based on what my friends post about me on social media?

Yes, in some circumstances. As with your own social media activity, it depends on what’s posted.

Unfortunately, we don’t have total control over what’s posted on social media, and there are times where we have a social media presence without intending to have one. You might have been at a party where others were taking illegal substances, and someone posted a picture with you in it. Or, you might have a Facebook friend that made vulgar, homophobic posts and tagged you among other random friends to spread the post further.

You weren’t the one engaging in questionable conduct or speech, but your identity comes up in connection with it. Your employer might take issue with being associated — even tangentially — to certain conduct online. Therefore, posts about or related to you can influence your employer’s decisions regarding your employment.

However, the same rules that apply to your own content apply to those of others. Your employer can’t fire or demote you because your friend added you to a Black Lives Matter page, for example. That activity is clearly tied to a protected trait (i.e., race), and it doesn’t matter if you weren’t the one to do it. You would still be able to challenge your employer’s decision on the grounds that it was motivated by discrimination.

———-

[1] Title VII Civil Rights Act § 2000e-2(a)

—–

Anita Mazumdar Chambers is a principal at The Employment Law Group, P.C., a law firm that represents employees in disputes with their employers.

By R. Scott Oswald and Austin Szabo

---

IMPORTANT: The following article is intended as a general summary of facts and law and not as individual legal advice upon which you should rely or act. Every case is unique and specific. This article represents our firm’s best knowledge as of April 2026.

---

Rolled-back regulations may leave you uncertain as to whether the federal government still cares about environmental wrongdoing. The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 by the Biden administration brought more focus on climate initiatives, but the Trump administration’s subsequent repeal of some of the initiatives and regulations has created confusion.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), however, has not changed its stance: Whistleblowers are encouraged to come forward with reports of environmental law violations, including any workplace retaliation. Federal laws may protect you from being fired, demoted, or otherwise punished by your employer for reporting potentially illegal behavior.

OSHA’s framework for reporting violations also remains unchanged and so does the very short statute of limitations: a mere 30 days to contact OSHA or lose your claim (and any legal protections against retaliation).

Do Environmental Laws Protect Whistleblowers From Retaliation?

Six federal laws forbid harming the environment or retaliating against employees who report potential violations in good faith. These laws, which prohibit actions such as illegal dumping and unsafe disposal of toxic materials, are:

• The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that addresses the handling of certain chemicals like asbestos or lead-based paint;
• The Clean Air Act (CAA) that regulates the emission of air pollutants;
• The Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) that dictates how waste, such as used oil, should be safely disposed of;
• The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) that is now commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and aims to restrict water pollution;
• The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) that establishes requirements for hazardous waste sites and cleanups; and
• The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that determines the quality standards for potable water.

You may expect these laws to fall under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but the EPA lacks the necessary power to fight against environmental whistleblower retaliation. Congress has instead given responsibility for nearly all environmental whistleblower laws to OSHA.

Each statute above can provide strong legal protection for whistleblowers — as well as monetary compensation for any harm suffered. Employers are not allowed to retaliate against an employee for reporting violations, but if they do, the employee may have a retaliation claim on their hands.

A whistleblower could request reinstatement to their previous position and receive back pay and compensatory damages if they’ve suffered economic harm (such as lost earnings if they’re fired or demoted) or noneconomic harm (such as emotional distress). Two of the statutes, TSCA and SDWA, go a step further and allow you to ask for punitive damages, which are meant to punish and deter defendants from repeating egregiously illegal behavior.

Luckily for whistleblowers, these statutes have a more relaxed “standard of causation” for retaliation claims than other similar laws, meaning you may have an easier time proving your case and winning. You’re only required to show that your report of unlawful activity was a motivating factor in your employer’s decision to retaliate (as opposed to the more difficult task of proving that the retaliation happened solely because of your report).

The Clock’s Ticking. How Much Time Do You Have to File a Retaliation Claim?

These are powerful statutes for whistleblowers, but slow and steady does not win this race. Here, the hare wins, meaning you must act fast or lose your claim. OSHA reporting laws have some of the shortest statute of limitations in United States law. The environmental whistleblower laws in particular only give you 30 days to file your retaliation claim.

You should call your local OSHA office as soon as you believe your employer is retaliating against you for whistleblowing. The clock starts ticking once you’ve been notified of an adverse action — even if the action will occur later. Let’s say you’re told on May 1st that you’ll be fired on May 15th. Your 30 days start counting down from when you learn of the upcoming retaliation, so you only have until May 31st to call OSHA.

How Do You File a Whistleblower Retaliation Claim With OSHA?

You can file a complaint with OSHA in person, online, via fax/mail/email, or by telephone.

The best way to file any complaint is in writing and with the help of an attorney, but a 30-day deadline doesn’t always give you time to prepare a written complaint. That deadline only applies to the initial report, however. If the deadline is looming, you can call OSHA now and just give a brief report that will stop the clock and buy you more time to gather documentation afterwards. Typically you need to explain to OSHA how:

1. You engaged in activity that is protected under environmental whistleblower protection laws (preferably mentioning the specific environmental harm you attempted to report or prevent);
2. Your employer knew or suspected that you engaged in protected activity;
3. Your employer took an adverse action against you, such as firing or demoting you; and
4. Your protected activity motivated your employer’s adverse action.

OSHA has field offices all around the country. To report retaliation, you’ll need to contact the correct one for your area. Make sure to closely review the descriptions for your state’s local field offices as there are some exceptions to geographic organization.

Virginia, for example, has a specific office that covers “federal employees; the United States Postal Service; private sector maritime; federal military facilities; and other federal territories where the state has relinquished jurisdiction to the federal government.” If you work in Virginia and fall under any of these categories, then you must call the Norfolk Area Office regardless of whether you work all the way in Abingdon, Virginia. You’ll also want to note that the Norfolk Area Office is not to be confused with the Norfolk State Plan Office.

Another quirk is that the entire Washington, D.C., area shares an OSHA office with Maryland’s federal employees: the Baltimore-Washington DC Area Office.

After you submit your initial report, you will be given a case number and likely a deadline to provide more information and documents for OSHA to investigate your claim.

What Happens After You Call OSHA?

Your initial report to OSHA gets you in the door within the 30-day deadline, but that’s only the beginning of the process. OSHA will begin investigating your claim and will ask if you have more information that may be helpful.

OSHA provides a list of recommended information that can help boost your claim. Examples of helpful information include, but are not limited to:

• Copies of lawfully obtained documents related to your claim, such as emails, meeting notes, or text messages;
• Copies of your termination letter or other disciplinary action(s) you received;
• A list of the management officials who decided to retaliate against you; and
• A list of potential witnesses who can back up your claim.

It’s important to know that your complaint is not anonymous. Your employer or former employer will find out what you filed.

Most of the investigation process, however, is out of your hands. The process is intended to only take 90 days for OSHA to release a decision regarding your claim, but the average wait extends to around 250 days due to chronic budget and staffing shortages at the agency.

You must wait OSHA to complete its investigation before you can proceed to litigation. Claims related to laws under OSHA must be litigated within the agency’s system.

How Can an Attorney Help You Through OSHA’s Process?

Pursuing a retaliation claim can be an arduous process and involve many moving parts. Having an attorney to guide you is ideal. They can stay on top of deadlines and make sure no stones are left unturned during OSHA’s investigation.

There are many documents you can submit to support your claim, but if you’re not careful, you can just as easily harm your case. Do you know which workplace files you’re legally allowed to make personal copies of? Is it a bad idea to record conversations with your boss? The answers to these questions and many more vary depending on the state and your specific job. An attorney would be able to suggest the best steps for you after reviewing the nuances of your situation.

The reality is also that the process may not end with only one investigation. OSHA dismisses most claims, and whistleblowers often have to appeal the decision. The initial dismissal may be disappointing, but the appeals process gives whistleblowers numerous opportunities to prove their case.

You would first file an appeal with an administrative law judge (ALJ). Once again, you’re looking at a tight deadline: within 30 days of OSHA’s decision. The ALJ then schedules a hearing after discovery and a pre-hearing briefing. The ALJ’s decision might not be favorable either, in which case you can appeal to the Administrative Review Board (ARB). The ARB typically makes its decision within 90 days. If you still don’t prevail, you may be able to appeal to a circuit court depending on which environmental law was violated.

Altogether, you have four levels where you can pursue your retaliation claim. This means, however, four different processes with their own unique challenges and best practices. An attorney with significant experience handling administrative whistleblower cases would improve your odds at approaching each stage in the strongest way possible.

Environmental whistleblower laws offer meaningful protections, but those protections come with strict deadlines and a fast-moving process. The most important step is to act quickly if you believe your employer has retaliated against you for reporting environmental violations. File a complaint with OSHA within 30 days to preserve your rights. From there, hire an experienced whistleblower retaliation lawyer to help you build your case and, if necessary, pursue an appeal.

—–

R. Scott Oswald is managing principal of The Employment Law Group, P.C., a law firm that represents employees in disputes with their employers. Austin Szabo is a senior associate at the firm.

The Underused, Highly Powered Employment Claim in D.C., Maryland, & Virginia

By Adam Augustine Carter and Charles Early

———

For weeks millions were glued to the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial, an edge-of-your seat courtroom drama that was dissected by seasoned lawyers and social media influencers alike. Beneath the celebrity spectacle, the case centered on a single legal claim: defamation.

Defamation can arise in the workplace when an employer or supervisor makes untrue accusations about an employee’s performance, conduct, or integrity. A defamation claim may accompany other employment law claims such as wrongful termination or retaliation.

But while other employment claims are often pursued in federal court, defamation claims can open the door to state court — a more favorable place to be as an individual plaintiff. Defamation claims also provide options for suing supervisors and receiving reputational damages as monetary compensation.

For employees considering legal action, the key question is this: When do workplace statements cross the line from internal criticism or evaluation into legally actionable defamation?

What is Defamation?

The most general definition is that defamation is a false statement that has damaged someone’s reputation. You may have heard the words “slander” or “libel” before. Both words are defamation, but they specify the method in which the defamation was conveyed. “Slander” is spoken, and “libel” is written.

Every jurisdiction in the U.S. recognizes defamation as a justifiable reason for litigation, although the requirements for a defamation case can vary slightly. Each jurisdiction also has its own statute of limitations &mdash the deadline by which an employee must file a claim for defamation or that claim will be forever lost. In D.C.,[1] Maryland,[2] and Virginia,[3] the statute of limitations is one year.

Some jurisdictions have additional rules depending on the type of defamation. Those jurisdictions distinguish between defamation per quod (where a plaintiff must prove the defamation caused them harm) and defamation per se (where, if proven, the defamation is so egregious that the damages are presumed). We’ll explore those two types in the “Damages” section below.

Basic Requirements of a Defamation Case

Although the standards vary from state to state, employees working to prove defamation in most contexts generally must show that (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the employee was (2) published to a third party (3) in a manner that was at least negligent and (4) that statement damaged the employee (unless the statement was so severely and obviously damaging that the plaintiff does not have to prove damages, as with defamation per se).[4]

Let’s break down each of those conceptual elements to determine whether a workplace statement rises to the level of defamation.

Statement: A statement is generally anything that is spoken (including sign language) or written. Again, “slander” would be a spoken (or signed) statement, and “libel” would be a written statement.

False: To be defamation, a statement regarding the employee must be factually incorrect. It cannot be a matter of opinion. Statements like “the employee is ugly” are rude but only an opinion. A statement like “Jeff is always late,” however, could be a false statement of fact. Compare that statement to the very similar “I believe Jeff is never on time.” The former is presented as a fact, and the latter is an opinion; therefore, the former may be defamation, and the latter is not.

Published: A statement generally is published if it is communicated to a third party. Spoken or signed statements may be shared in person or via audio and video communication services, such as phone or Zoom calls. A written statement may be a physical page that is handwritten or typed, a digital document, or a digital message (like an email) that is then delivered to a third party.

Third party: For a defamation case, the false statement must be communicated to another individual besides the employee it concerns. A conversation between the person who makes the statement and the employee is not defamation until and unless the person making the statement publishes it to someone else.

Negligent: The speaker of the statement usually can’t be held liable for defamation unless the employee can show that the speaker was at least careless about whether it was true. This generally can be proved by showing that the speaker ignored contradictory evidence, that they failed to verify the information before they published it to a third-party or that they failed to perform any fact-checking where a reasonable person would.

Special Requirements in the DMV

Different jurisdictions have different rules about the details that must be included when someone files a lawsuit.

Virginia requires that defamation claims be “plead with precision.” In practice, this means the complaint must include:

• The exact words of the allegedly defamatory statement(s) or the document containing the statement(s);[5]
• Who made or published the statement;
• When the statement was published; and
• To whom the statement was communicated.

Importantly, Virginia courts do not recognize innuendos beyond the ordinary plain meaning of the words. Plaintiffs are not allowed to expand upon the meaning to show it’s defamatory.[6]

Washington, D.C.’s requirements are less stringent than Virginia’s. A defamation complaint must still include the following information but not to the level of specificity required by Virginia:

• The allegedly defamatory statement(s);
• Who made the statement;
• When the statement was published;
• To whom the statement was communicated; and
• How the statement was communicated.[7]

Maryland falls between Virginia and D.C. in terms of how much detail a plaintiff must include when filing a claim. Courts generally require plaintiffs to provide enough factual detail to support each element of defamation. Under Maryland law, a plaintiff must show that:

• A false statement was made about the plaintiff;
• The statement was published to a third party;
• The speaker was at least negligent regarding the truth; and
• The plaintiff’s reputation was harmed as a result of the statement.[8]

Damages

If a person proves defamation, the law allows them to seek compensation for several kinds of harm called “damages.”

So-called “special” damages are economic losses resulting from the defamation. In an employment context, this generally includes loss of employment (or job offer), reduced earnings, and other out-of-pocket losses caused by the defamatory statement. Examples of out-of-pocket losses include job search expenses, relocation costs for new employment, or costs incurred to address or correct the false statement.

“General” damages are those that can’t be quickly or easily quantified because they are non-economic in nature, which can include reputational harm, humiliation, and mental and physical anguish.

Whether an employee needs to prove damage occurred depends on whether the defamation is considered per quod or per se.

Defamation per quod is the more common type of defamation and requires proof of how the false statements caused harm to the employee. For example, an employee could show that they lost promotions, received negative performance evaluations, or were fired because of the defamation. Constructive termination (where the false statements result in an employee self-terminating their employment) could also be a provable damage. Unlike its per se cousin, defamation per quod requires an employee to allege how they were damaged in their complaint against the employer.

Defamation per se, in contrast, requires no proof of actual damages because some statements are considered so inherently harmful that the law assumes they damaged a person’s reputation. These include but are not limited to false statements that the plaintiff is unfit for their profession, is infected with certain diseases, or that they committed a crime. Historically, statements about infidelity have also been considered defamation per se.

Again, keep in mind that the false statement must be presented as fact to be considered defamation. “Jeff robbed the corner store” is stated like a fact, but “I think Jeff robbed the corner store” is a person’s opinion that Jeff may have robbed the corner store.

In cases of defamation per se, plaintiffs are sometimes entitled to presumed damages. Presumed damages may not be an option in cases involving a media organization as a defendant or matters of public concern — unless the employee can show “actual malice.” They would need to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge that the statements were false or made the statements with reckless disregard as to whether they were true.[9]

In some defamation cases, a plaintiff may be awarded punitive damages, which are designed to punish particularly egregious conduct and discourage similar behavior in the future. In most jurisdictions, an award of punitive damages requires that the plaintiff prove the employer’s statement(s) were made with actual malice.

Unlike many jurisdictions, Virginia allows for damages against an employer to be mitigated. The damages awarded may be reduced if the defendant in a defamation case apologizes to the plaintiff or retracts the defamatory statement.[10] However, Virginia law requires that the apology at least be attempted before the lawsuit is filed or as soon as possible thereafter.

Employer Privileges

Employees often encounter workplace statements that seem to be defamatory and appear to meet the required elements. A defamation claim may still fail, however, if the statement is protected by a legal doctrine called “privilege.”

There are several situations in which employers or supervisors are permitted to make statements without the risk of being sued for any resulting adverse consequences — again, unless the statement was made with malice.[11] As with many factors, different jurisdictions recognize different kinds of privilege.

Qualified/common-interest privilege: This type of privilege exists when the person making the statement and the person to whom it is communicated have a common interest in the information. The speaker must also be acting within the scope of their job. This most often occurs when someone makes a good-faith report about an employee to a supervisor or human resources representative. The communication is protected if it is only originally shared within the organization and made with honest, good intentions.[12]

Judicial proceedings privilege: D.C. recognizes absolute privilege for litigation and judicial proceedings.[13] This means that statements made during court proceedings — and likely during administrative proceedings — generally cannot give rise to a defamation case.[14] Virginia[15] and Maryland[16] recognize similar protections, though they may not cover as broad of a category as D.C. does.

Statutory immunities: Many jurisdictions, including Maryland and Virginia, have laws that protect employers who make statements in good faith (even if potentially defamatory in nature).[17] As with other forms of privilege, statutory protections may be lost when the employer (or its agents) acts with malice. D.C. does not have similar legislation in place, but protections have been established by previous case decisions.

Defamation in the Workplace

Workplace defamation can sometimes be tricky to argue. The most common places for defamation to occur — such as human resources communications or termination meetings — are often protected by privilege. This doesn’t mean you should write it off immediately, however. There can still be options for a successful case.

Internal HR communications & performance evaluations

Courts have determined that internal human resources communications are generally protected by qualified privilege.[18] Qualified privilege, however, can be lost if:

• The speaker acted with malice, meaning they intended to harm the employee;
• The statement was shared beyond those who reasonably needed to receive it (for example, through a company-wide email rather than communication contained between the supervisor and HR);
• The speaker knew the statement was false; or
• The speaker recklessly ignored information suggesting the statement was false.

Termination and investigation communications

Defamation claims can also arise out of termination meetings, explanatory letters, and investigation summaries. For each of these scenarios, qualified privilege typically exists, too, unless the employee proves malice, excessive publication (e.g., email blast or similar occurrence), or the supervisor’s statements were knowingly or recklessly false.[19]

Post-employment references

Sometimes the defamation doesn’t occur until after you’re no longer working for an employer. Let’s say you list your former employer as a reference on a job application. What if they make false and defamatory statements to a prospective employer? Jurisdictions vary regarding how they address this situation. Maryland and Virginia legally protect employers who disclose information about a former employee’s performance and reason for termination, provided that the former employer acts in good faith.[20] Employers lose this protection if they intentionally or knowingly disclose false information about an employee.[21] D.C. does not have a comparable statute, but previous cases show that courts will similarly protect employers.

Statements made to government bodies

In most cases, statements made to government bodies regarding an employee are privileged or protected by law. A speaker often cannot be held liable for anything they say during unemployment hearings, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) proceedings, or other government proceedings.

Many of these proceedings require individuals to testify under oath or to attest to their statements under penalty of perjury. False statements in these situations can lead to criminal penalties, so the law generally assumes that witnesses are testifying in good faith unless proven otherwise. Additionally, granting immunity against defamation encourages people to provide complete and candid information that may be relevant to the proceeding. Courts recognize that participants in these proceedings should be able to speak freely without fear of defamation lawsuits.

D.C., Maryland, and Virginia all recognize privileges for statements made in judicial or administrative proceedings, but Virginia is unique in that its law goes a step further to specifically protect statements in unemployment hearings.

Who Can Be Sued for Defamation

Employers (or former employers) usually can be held liable for the defamatory statements of their employees if the speaker who made the defamatory statement was acting within the scope of their job.[22] In some circumstances, plaintiffs can also sue the individual who made the statement, such as their supervisor or the human resources investigator.

Claims against an employer: When suing an employer, the employee must name the proper entity and then allege that the speaker acted within the course and scope of their employment when making the statement. In many cases, an employee should also consider bringing a claim for negligent hiring and/or retention if possible. See the “Additional Claims” section below for a brief explanation.

Claims against an individual: To sue an individual, a plaintiff has to overcome the issue of qualified privilege. They must either show that the speaker acted with malice or excessively published the defamatory statement (nullifying the privilege) or that the speaker acted outside of their job responsibilities (in which case, qualified privilege never applied).[23] When suing an individual, a plaintiff must name the speaker(s) personally.

Potential Employer Defenses

When an employee brings a defamation claim, the employer or supervisor is likely to assert that they didn’t do anything legally wrong — even if they acknowledge that the statement occurred. Defendants often argue that the statement was true or protected by privilege. The following are some of the most common defenses raised in defamation cases.

Truth: Truth is an absolute defense against defamation.[24] The first element of defamation requires that the statement be false, so if the statement is not false, then the employee has not been defamed. However, it’s on the defendant to prove that the statement was true. As an example, let’s say Marcus was an employee at a Virginia hospital. Marcus’s medical license became suspended in Virginia, so the hospital fired him because he could not practice medicine. The hospital also notified the National Practitioner Data Bank of Marcus’s suspended license. If Marcus sues the hospital for defamation, the hospital would have to present documentation and testimony from the state licensing board to prove that Marcus’s license was, in fact, suspended.

Substantial truth: An employer might argue that the statement contains some inaccuracies but is mostly true in overall substance. A statement being substantially true (even if not 100% true) undercuts several of the required elements for a defamation case. If a statement is mostly true, then is it really considered false? Moreover, a substantially true statement can’t have been made negligently because there was enough care taken in making the statement for it to have come out only partially untrue. It can also be argued that a substantially true statement could not have damaged the employee. Again, however, the defendant has to first prove that the statement was substantially true, and there’s a lot of gray area. Whether a statement is substantially true is typically a question for the jury to decide.

Opinion: As we’ve touched on, opinions are not statements of fact and generally cannot support a defamation claim. They are protected by the First Amendment. If employees were allowed to sue because of opinions, courts would become paralyzed by the sheer volume of defamation lawsuits. The defendant does still bear the burden of proving that their statement is an opinion, but this is reasonably easy because of the many hallmarks that distinguish opinions from objective facts.

Consent: If an employee consents to the statement being shared, the employer generally cannot be held liable for defamation. Perhaps the statement is false, widely published, and actually damaging for the employee. But consent means that the employee authorized the publication of the statement, therefore either confirming the veracity of the statement or absolving the employer of any negligence they may have committed in making the statement. Once an employee has given consent, they cannot then come back and hold the employer liable when the statement harms them.

Anti-SLAPP

A SLAPP — short for “strategic lawsuit against public participation”[25] — is a lawsuit filed primarily to intimidate or silence someone who has spoken out on an issue of public concern. These lawsuits are often brought by individuals or companies with greater financial resources in the hopes of forcing critics to spend more time and money defending the case rather than continuing to speak out. Defamation claims are frequently used in SLAPP lawsuits.

To address this problem, at least 30 states have enacted anti-SLAPP laws, which allow SLAPP victims to ask a court to dismiss these lawsuits early in the case.

However, anti-SLAPP laws can operate as a double-edged sword. They were designed to protect individuals who speak out on matters of public interest, but employers may use these same laws to try to dismiss valid defamation claims brought by employees. In those situations, the employer might argue that the employee wasn’t defamed but is instead trying to punish the employer’s protected speech. The employee would then be required to prove the merits of their case earlier in the litigation process than otherwise.

The strength of anti-SLAPP protections varies by jurisdiction. D.C. has one of the most robust anti-SLAPP statutes and provides broad protection for speech on matters of public interest. Defendants may be able to invoke the statute even when the alleged defamation occurred in private settings, such as workplace communications or internal emails.[26] Maryland’s anti-SLAPP law is more limited and primarily applies to statements made to the government or the public.[27]

Virginia takes a somewhat different approach. Virginia law grants immunity to individuals who make certain protected statements, including statements:

• About matters of public concern that would be protected under the First Amendment;
• Made at a public hearing before a governmental body authorized by the Commonwealth;
• Made during a Title IX hearing; or
• Made by an employee about an employer in situations where retaliation for such statements is prohibited by law.[28]

However, the immunity can be lost if the speaker knows the statement is false.[29]

Additional Claims Employees Often Bring Alongside Defamation

False light: This claim arises when an individual is portrayed publicly in a way that is false and highly offensive to a reasonable person. False light differs from defamation because it requires the offensive portrayal to be widely publicized, such as deepfake adult content published on social media. This action is recognized in D.C.[30] and Maryland[31] but not in Virginia.

Tortious interference with prospective/at-will employment: Tortious interference claims arise when an individual causes harm to the plaintiff’s at-will employment (or offer of employment). Some people have qualified privilege to make reports to someone’s employer, but those who do not — either because they don’t have a relevant workplace relationship or because they acted with malice — could be seen as interfering with the contractual relationship between employer and employee. This would occur if their defamatory statement caused the employer to demote, dismiss, or otherwise modify the employee’s job. The speaker who made the defamatory statement doesn’t need to work for the same employer to potentially be liable for this claim. A jilted ex-partner who contacted an employer and made accusations that cost the employee their job could be sued for tortious interference. The bar for this type of claim is low, only requiring proof of negligence. D.C., Maryland, and Virginia all recognize tortious interference claims in different forms.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress: Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is recognized in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. To prove an IIED claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, that it was intentional or reckless, and that it caused extreme emotional distress to the plaintiff. When possible, claims for IIED pair well with defamation because the requirements for proving malice are similar.

Negligent hiring/retention: This type of claim alleges that the employer knew (or reasonably should have known) the unfitness of the employee it hired and, as such, is liable for the harm the employee causes. If a supervisor defames an employee, the employee may be able to argue that the employer’s negligence in hiring that supervisor contributed to the harm they experienced. Courts in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia all recognize claims for negligent hiring and/or retention.[32]

Wrongful/abusive discharge: These kinds of claims may be available if the employee was actually (or constructively) terminated — if the termination also violated public policy. D.C., Maryland,[33] and Virginia all have variations of wrongful or abusive discharge.

Insulting words: Virginia is unique among the three jurisdictions discussed here in that it recognizes a claim for “insulting words.”[34] This claim is frequently pled alongside defamation in Virginia because it is so similar to defamation and is codified in statute. However, the claim is narrow and requires showing that the exact words were intended to insult the plaintiff.

DMV Distinctions Worth Noting

Complaint requirements: Virginia requires the highest level of detail in a defamation complaint, requesting the exact words or actual document containing the defamation. D.C. and Maryland are less strict but still require that the claims be specific.

Immunity/privilege: As discussed above, Maryland and Virginia provide certain statutory protections for employers who make employment-related statements in good faith. Similar immunity in D.C. is established by case decisions rather than statutes, but the result is almost the same. In all three jurisdictions, protections may be lost if the speaker acted with malice.

Proceedings privilege: Virginia grants absolute privilege for statements made during unemployment hearings. Agency and other tribunal communications are carefully analyzed across all three jurisdictions to determine whether they are privileged or otherwise immune from liability.

Anti-SLAPP: A defendant in a defamation case has the best chance of getting the case dismissed using an anti-SLAPP statute in D.C. Anti-SLAPP protections in Maryland are limited to situations where the accused individual made statements to the public or to a government body. Virginia is even more specific about which statements may be protected by anti-SLAPP statutes.

Questions to Consider Before Bringing a Defamation Claim

• What was the defamatory statement? Are you able to identify what was specifically said (and, if possible, the exact words said)?
• Who made the statement? Was the statement made by a supervisor, coworker, or another individual, and were they acting within the scope of their employment?
• Was the statement shared with others? Who was the audience, and how was the statement communicated (for example, in a meeting, email, or report)?
• Could the statement be protected by privilege? For example, was it made in an HR investigation, during litigation, or in another situation where the law may protect certain communications?
• What harm resulted from the statement? Did you lose a job opportunity, experience reputational harm, or suffer other damages?
• Could anti-SLAPP laws apply? In some jurisdictions — especially Washington, D.C., and Virginia — defendants may try to dismiss defamation claims early by arguing that the lawsuit targets protected speech.

The variations of privileges and anti-SLAPP protections available in each jurisdiction make workplace defamation complicated to navigate, but a solid defamation claim can not only help your case for other employment law grievances but also open the door for more compensation.

If your job has been impacted by a defamatory statement, contact The Employment Law Group today

———-

[1] D.C. Code § 12-301(a)(4).
[2] Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-105.
[3] Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-247.1.
[4] Oparaugo v. Watts, 884 A.2d 63 (D.C. 2005); Piscatelli v. Van Smith, 35 A.3d 1140 (Md. 2012); Gazette, Inc. v. Harris, 229 Va. 1, 325 S.E.2d 713 (1985).
[5] Bennett v. Lundh, 916 S.E.2d 356 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
[6] Schaecher v. Bouffault, 772 S.E.2d 589 (Va. 2015).
[7] See Crowley v. N. Am. Trans. Ass’n, 691 A.2d 1169 (D.C. 1996).
[8] See generally Batson v. Shiflett, 602 A.2d 1191 (Md. 1992).
[9] See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
[10] Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-46.
[11] See Larimore v. Blaylock, 528 S.E.2d 119 (Va. 2000); Jacron Sales Co. v. Sindorf, 350 A.2d 688 (Md. 1976); Payne v. Clark, 25 A.3d 918 (D.C. 2011).
[12] See Larimore v. Blaylock, 528 S.E.2d 119 (Va. 2000); Jacron Sales Co. v. Sindorf, 350 A.2d 688 (Md. 1976); Payne v. Clark, 25 A.3d 918 (D.C. 2011).
[13] See D.C. Code § 16-4203 (communications in mediation are privileged and excluded from tort liability); D.C. Code § 4-1705.01 (communications to and with an attorney referral service are privileged); see Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., 774 A.2d 332, 338 (D.C. 2001).
[14] Messina v. Fontana, 260 F.Supp.2d 173, 178 (D.D.C. 2003).
[15] Katz v. Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C., 332 F.Supp.2d 909 (E.D. Va. 2004); Penick v. Ratcliffe, 149 Va. 618 (1927); Spencer v. Looney, 116 Va. 767, 82 S.E. 745 (1914).
[16] See generally Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 907 F.3d 766 (4th Cir. 2018); see Norman v. Borison, 418 Md. 630, 658 (2011); Mixter v. Farmer, 215 Md. App. 536, 543 (2013) (“an absolute privilege for attorneys to make potentially defamatory statements if the statements have some rational relationship to the judicial proceedings.”)
[17] Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-423; Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-46.1.
[18] See Larimore v. Blaylock, 528 S.E.2d 119 (Va. 2000); Raytheon Tech. Servs. v. Hyland, 614 S.E.2d 84 (Va. 2004).
[19] See Crowley v. N. Am. Trans. Ass’n, 691 A.2d 1169 (D.C. 1996).
[20] Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-423; Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-46.1.
[21] Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-423(b); Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-46.1.
[22] See Debastian v. Dist. of Columbia, 636 A.2d 958 (D.C. 1994); Giant of Va. v. Pigg, 152 S.E.2d 271 (Va. 1967); see generally Barclay v. Briscoe, 47 A.3d 560 (Md. 2012) (collecting Maryland cases establishing the common law doctrine for respondeat superior).
[23] See e.g., Armstrong v. Thompson, 80 A.3d 177 (D.C. 2013).
[24] Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-46; Alexandria Gazette Corp. v. West, 93 S.E.2d 274 (Va. 1956); M & S Furniture Sales Co. v. De Bartolo Corp., 241 A.2d 126 (Md. 1968); see also New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
[25] Pring, George William; Canan, Penelope (1996). SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out. Temple University Press.
[26] D.C. Code § 16-5501 et seq.
[27] Md. Cts. & & Jud. Proc. § 5-807.
[28] Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2(A).
[29] Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223.2(B).
[30] See Desbach v. Doubleday & Co., 518 F. Supp. 1285 (D.D.C. 1981); Kitt v. Capital Concerts, Inc., 742 A.2d 856 (D.C. 1999); Lane v. Random House, Inc., 985 F. Supp. 141 (D.D.C. 1995).
[31] See Crowley v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 851 F. Supp. 700 (D. Md. 1994); Prince George’s County v. Longtin, 19 A.3d 859 (Md. 2011).
[32] Negligent hiring: see Sebastian v. Dist. of Columbia, 636 A.2d 958 (D.C. 1994); Asphalt & Concrete Servs., Inc. v. Perry, 108 A.3d 558 (Md. App. 2015); Southeast Apartments Mgmt., Inc. v. Jackman, 513 S.E.2d 395 (Va. 1999); Negligent retention: Williams v. Dist. of Columbia, 916 F. Supp 1 (D.D.C. 1996); see Economides v. Gay, 155 F. Supp. 2d 485 (D. Md. 2001); Doe v. Baker, 857 S.E.2d 573 (Va. 2021).
[33] See Adler v. Am. Standard Corp., 830 F.2d 1303 (4th Cir. 1987).
[34] Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-45.

———-

Adam Augustine Carter is a principal of The Employment Law Group, P.C.; Charles Early is an associate at the firm.