[RegulatorCountry]

There is a difference between firing and laying off. One carries a connotation of poor performance or wrongdoing. If the pretext for firing rises to the level of slander and is demonstrably inaccurate, there should be not just a penalty for it but restrictions. I say that as a former business owner who has hired, fired and laid people off in the past.

Employment at will does not mean you're free to be a lying @hole. It's their livelihood, you're throwing their lives into turmoil. Not a thing to be flippant or vindictive about, at all, for your good as well as theirs.

[Gene Eric]

>> Employment at will does not mean you’re free to be a lying @hole. It’s their livelihood, you’re throwing their lives into turmoil. Not a thing to be flippant or vindictive about, at all, for your good as well as theirs.

There are legitimate remedies for slander not dependent on employment.

>> you’re free
>> you’re throwing
>> for your good

You mean “the employer”.

You seem to have a paternal view on this matter which of course is your option. Doesn’t mean, however, your thoughtful views should be law.

[vbmoneyspender]

If the pretext for firing rises to the level of slander and is demonstrably inaccurate, there should be not just a penalty for it but restrictions.

The penalty is the restriction. And are you suggesting there should be some special class of slander torts where you get extra goodies if the slander applies to your employment?

I know, I know - in our day and age the 'There Oughta be a Law' impulse is just too hard control. And it really is too much to expect for anyone, including conservatives, to resist its allure of immediate gratification.