Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Virginia

Re: Cyberlibel

If your written expression is ordinary libel, then in order to entertain any suit at all, the potential plaintiff would have to be able to plead special damages (in the sense of some specific harm the coworker has suffered as a result of your statements like lost wages, and as distinct from general damages which includes such things as embarassment, shame, humiliation, etc.). Absent such a showing, there is no case.

The Virginia Supreme Court said, in Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 262-263 (1978), "The essence of libel per se is the publication in writing of false statements that tend to injure a person's reputation. The essence of slander per se is the publication by spoken words of false statements imputing to a person a criminal offense; a loathsome disease; matter affecting adversely a person's fitness for trade, business, or profession; or serious sexual misconduct."

In this context, my only concern would be as to statement 2 ("That she had been promoted beyond her abilities."). If the person's abilities are subject to objective qualification through the administration of tests of skill, knowledge, or competence, then you've got a problem. Otherwise, I don't think you do.

Here's why: first, in order to be libel at all, the statement has to be a false statement. That necessarily presumes that the statement has to be of the sort that can be characterized as "true or false". A theory, for example, cannot be true or false because a theory is simply a way of organizing perceptions or seeing the data. Nor can (importantly, in your case), mere opinion be either true or false, it's just how you happen (however perversely) to see things.

If the statement that the coworker was advanced beyond her abilities was demonstrably false (remember that the plaintiff has to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence), and this tended to impugn her reputation for fitness in her trade, occupation, or profession, it's libel per se; if it was merely your expression of your opinion, then it's not.

The difference is that a person victimized by libel per se does not have to prove special damages. General damages will suffice ("plaintiff was harmed in her reputation as a rotating widget flipper, and suffered extreme embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress.")

Was it libel? I wouldn't take the plaintiff's case on a contingent fee with those facts, still, it's an arguable claim. I don't think such a case would go very far, but anyone can sue anyone for anything at anytime. It's good to have defenses like "opinion" and "true statement" but I'd rather not be sued.

The action could be brought in any jurisdiction in which the statements were published and also had harmful effect, whether D.C., Md., or Va.