Failed to get paid after leaving the job, criticized the boss on social media; lost the lawsuit filed by the boss

Thread Content

Unhappy about not receiving her basic salary and commissions after leaving her job, Ms. Wu from Zhuhai posted on her WeChat Moments, using terms such as \"shameless\" and \"greedy\" to criticize the former company’s management. As a result, she was sued by the company’s managers on charges of defamation; in addition to apologizing, she was also ordered to pay 10,000 yuan as compensation for emotional distress. Recently, the Xiangzhou District Court in Zhuhai conducted the first-instance trial of this case. Company owner: The remarks made by the former employee were clearly aggressive. Wang Ping (a pseudonym) is the owner of a information technology company in Zhuhai; she recently sued the company’s former employee, Miss Wu. In the judgment, Wang Ping stated that on February 16 of this year, Miss Wu resigned for personal reasons. Shortly thereafter, she spread rumors, slandered, and defamed her by claiming that Wang Ping refused to pay her commission, alleging that she was greedy for money and shameless, and she also launched personal attacks on her while posting such accusations publicly on her social media circle. Even the defendant disclosed the chat records between the plaintiff and defendant in communications with former colleagues and clients of the original company, thereby making unfounded accusations against that person. Wang Ping said that the aforementioned actions led to widespread discussion among company colleagues and clients regarding this matter, causing serious damage to her right to reputation. As a senior manager of the company, she originally enjoyed a good reputation among clients and great prestige among colleagues. However, the actions of the defendant caused the clients, colleagues, and even relatives of the plaintiff’s company to have an extremely low opinion of her socially, disrupting her otherwise peaceful life and causing her great mental distress. She requests that the court hold Miss Wu, the defendant, liable for tortious acts in accordance with the law. Employee: The company owes commissions; it’s just a statement of facts, no slander. Regarding the charges against Wang Ping, Miss Wu admitted in court that she indeed posted those statements on her WeChat Moments, but believed she was merely stating facts and not slandering anyone, as Wang Ping owed commissions and also made personal attacks on her family members. Ms. Wu said that she left her company at the beginning of this year. Due to the unpaid base salary and commissions, she began to demand payment from Wu Ping in February 2017. However, the companies under Wu Ping’s management kept shirking their responsibilities, and the payments were delayed for almost three months; it was not until April 5, 2017, that she received the first installment of commissions amounting to 6,199.19 yuan. There were still two more installments of commissions that had not been paid. Miss Wu said that when she first tried to claim her commission, she maintained a very polite attitude and did not use any harsh words; it was Wang Ping who was rude, using obscene language in their conversations and calling her crazy. Later, Wang Ping attacked her personally as well as her mother via WeChat, and also harassed and insulted her mother and husband by phone. Since her commission had not been paid yet, she was very angry, and in June of this year she posted the WeChat chat records between herself and Wang Ping on her social media circle. Miss Wu also presented some voice chat records to the court to support her claims, pointing out that after disagreements arose over online comments, Wang Ping deliberately altered her departure date in an attempt to fabricate facts. On this point, the court found in the first instance that Miss Wu applied to leave her employer on January 16, 2017; however, on the \"Resignation Interview Form\" and \"Resignation Application Approval Form\" provided by the company’s manager, Wang Ping, the month indicated as \"1\" for both the date of departure and the date of signature by the department head was manually changed to \"2\". Court: The first-instance judgment dismissed the case, ruling that it did not constitute a defamation claim. The court found that Miss Wu worked as a salesperson at the company; when she left her job in January of this year, the company still owed her wages and commissions totaling about 20,000 yuan, which were paid to her in three installments by May 22, 2017. In the first-instance judgment, Xiangzhou Court found that the plaintiff, Wang Ping, argued that the defendant had made the chat messages between them public on the defendant’s social media account, and had used explicitly offensive statements such as \"shameless\" and \"greedy\" to attack her personally. It is a fact that after Ms. Wu, the defendant, resigned, the company failed to pay her wages; it was therefore reasonable for her to use WeChat to demand payment from the company’s department supervisors and managers. The court also stated that, as can be seen from the WeChat conversation records provided by the defendant, the defendant did not use any aggressive language at first. The company did not start paying the outstanding wages until nearly 3 months after the defendant left the job; after that, the plaintiff made aggressive remarks in conversations with the defendant and even claimed to want to call the defendant’s mother to \"say hello\". On the one hand, the defendant argued that the company still owed him two commissions that had not been paid. On the other hand, in response to the inappropriate remarks made by the plaintiff against the defendant’s family, the defendant posted comments on social media, expressing negative views regarding both the company and the plaintiff. “Although the defendant’s remarks were somewhat extreme, they were a reaction to the company’s failure to pay his wages as well as to the plaintiff’s actions and words.” ” The court also stated that Wang Ping claimed that the defendant’s publication of her WeChat conversation records with the plaintiff on social media had led to a negative assessment of her by the company’s clients and the head office, which could affect her career and cause damage to her reputation; however, she failed to provide evidence to prove that such damage had indeed occurred. As a result, the court dismissed Wang Ping’s claims at the first instance and ordered her to bear the costs associated with handling the case.