i do have a past with drugs and i have been clean for 5 years. without questioning me about it, she fired me on the spot. she said that she can not be having people from the outside coming in and saying things like that. do i have a slander case.
As for whether you have a claim against the employer for wrongful termination, it is unlikely. I am unfamiliar with whether Michigan is an at will employment state and, if so, what exemptions they permit to the doctrine but i suspect a concern by an employer that you had a history or are currently an addict would permit termination. As for slander, it depends on exactly what was said (you "are" a drug addict or you "have been a drug addict). The issue is truth of the factual statement. Also, it would depend on whether you can get the person(s) to whom the statement was made to "fess up". If you can and the statement was that you were presently an addict and you lost your job due to the statement, you probably have a viable slander case. You can check my guide on AVVO regarding the basics of defamation and defamation per se.
Mr. Address gives you good advice. As he advises, it is unlikely that you have any viable claim with regard to getting your job back or seeking damages for being terminated. But, depending on the precise words used by the "person from the outside," you may have a rather classic slander claim.
There may be two other available claims here. I am a NY attorney and cannot advise you as to the laws in your state, but I can tell you that in many states both prima facie tort and tortious interference with contract claims may be available.
Let's start with the tortious interference claim. It likely would not be terribly strong. I'll explain why. Tortious interference with contract requires (1) the existence of a valid contract; (2) interference with that contract (3) in a way that is unjustified, (4) resulting in damages.
While it seems that you can meet all of those elements, your employment was "at will," meaning that either the employer or the employee is free to terminate the employment relationship for any reason that does not constitute unlawful discrimination or violation of a written employment agreement. (I am assuming here that you were not a unionized employee -- if you were, you would have an array of rights and should immediately contact your union representative).
Because of the "at will" doctrine, it would be difficult for a court (or a jury) to assume that your employment would have continued permanently but for the actions of that officious intermeddler. But if you are going to sue, you may as well include a tortious interference claim.
Turning to prima facie tort, if it is available in your state, in my view it would be a particularly strong claim. Prima facie tort is a kind of new-age tort. Liability is premised on the idea that someone did what they otherwise had the lawful right to do, but they lose that right because they were motivated by "disinterested malevolence" -- which means solely my malice. Any advantage that would accrue, directly or indirectly, to the defendant would undercut the notion of disinterested malevolence.
Here, it appears that the only motivation of that "person from the outside" would be to harm you. You clearly have damages (loss of your job).
Thus, if you were to sue, you would likely wish to sue for slander, prima facie tort, and possibly tortious interference with contract as well.
By the way, I do not know what you mean when you say you lost your job "after 2 days on." If that means that you were hired only two days before, that would obviously affect your case.
I would strongly advise you to consult with a local attorney at your earliest convenience.
Good luck to you.
Michael S. Haber is a New York attorney. As such, his responses to posted inquiries, such as the one above, are limited to his understanding of law in the jurisdiction in which he practices and not to any other jurisdiction. In addition, no response to any posted inquiry should be deemed to constitute legal advice, nor to constitute the existence of an attorney/client or other contractual or fiduciary relationship, inasmuch as rendering legal advice involves the ability of the attorney to ask appropriate questions of the person seeking such advice and to thus gather appropriate information. In addition, an attorney/client relationship is formed only by specific agreement. The purpose of this answer is to provide the questioner with general information, not to outline specific legal rights and remedies.
Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.What determines Avvo Rating?Experience & background
Years licensed, work experience, educationLegal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awardsLegal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagementsDiscipline