A Yolo County, California, jury found in favor of former Yolo Food Bank executive director, Michael Bisch on his claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, whistleblower retaliation, breach of contract, and defamation. The jury also found that punitive damages should be imposed.
Bisch had sued in June 2022, asserting he was fired and then defamed for raising concerns about alleged conflicts of interest involving food bank board members and county supervisors connected to the organization's mission.
His attorney stated that evidence at trial showed a systematic effort to discredit him through unsubstantiated accusations that were not properly investigated, with shifting explanations given for his termination.
The jury rendered a verdict for more than two million dollars in compensatory damages, including roughly $1.04 million for wrongful termination, about $1.05 million for whistleblower retaliation, approximately $666,667 for breach of contract, and about $240,000 for defamation against the food bank and individual defendants, with the amount of punitive damages to be decided later.
Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/former-yolo-food-bank-exec-184503312.html
Commentary
In the above matter, damages were attributed to different wrongs, including damages for defamation, which is a tort. After a termination, the greatest defamation risk for nonprofits often arises not from the decision to discharge, but from what is said about the former employee afterward.
Defamation claims typically allege that leaders or coworkers communicated false statements of fact about the person's conduct or performance, and that those statements were shared beyond those with a need to know. Careless explanations to staff, donors, or partner agencies, or overly candid remarks during reference checks, can turn a clean termination into a costly lawsuit.
NPOs can reduce this exposure by tightly managing all post?termination communications. Internal talking points should be scripted in advance, limited to accurate and supportable facts, and delivered only to those who require the information for business reasons.
Vague character attacks or embellished explanations such as implying dishonesty, criminal behavior, or serious policy violations without solid objective documentation are particularly dangerous and should be avoided. When responding to reference requests, it is safer to stick to verifiable data like dates of employment, positions held, and documented performance information, rather than opinions or speculation about attitude or integrity
Nonprofits should also train supervisors that casual conversations can be just as actionable as formal statements; both written and spoken comments may be treated as defamatory if they are false, disseminated, and harm the person's reputation.
Finally, partnering with legal counsel on high?risk terminations and on any proposed statement that goes beyond neutral facts can prevent an emotionally-charged departure from becoming a defamation claim.
