AIBU to think my ex employers can’t do this?

[Wowsharona]

I recently accepted a settlement to leave my job after discriminatory comments were made to me on two occasions after announcing my pregnancy.

it was a good offer so didn’t want to go into a long drawn out tribunal process whilst pregnant.

I left last week, today I received a message from an ex colleague asking if my mother was ok. I was confused as my mother died years ago in my early teens.

turns out after I had been paid off and left (was an abrupt leaving due to the situation) 2 days after I had officially gone an email was sent from my work email address saying goodbye to everyone and telling them I was leaving to take care of my sick and elderly mother!

it ended with ‘I’m sorry this is abrupt but for my own mental health I am requesting no one reach out via linked in as I’d like to put all my energy into my family’

I’m absolutely fuming, AIBU to think although yes my email address is technically their property they can’t pretend to be me and email everyone?

And telling everyone the OP has mental health issues. This is unbelievable. I hope they pay a hefty price for this shit.

The stress to OP and her unborn baby can’t be proven though really. If she develops a stress related condition due to this then her company could argue that it could be down to any stress, not just this stress they’ve caused her.

Shocking. Get straight on to your trade union for legal advice.

I think “potential” anything isn’t a good idea to go after. But if her previous employers are lying about why she left and also about the fact that her mother is still alive when she died many years ago, that is stressful and upsetting, not only to OP but also to anyone else who knows about this, eg a brother , her father etc.

Then there’s the GDPR aspect as someone else mentioned.

I worked for a short time with data risk legal team in a large accounting firm. We were shown a video on data risk and what could be at risk. I’m not in touch with them now but they would say data risk and GDPR has been broached. If I have to undertake GDPR training which I have had to do, then the company should be aware of fines, if any, which can be imposed for breaches.

You should've agreed in your settlement about what would be announced as your reason for leaving and agreed on the text. I left my job because "I wished to support my son going to College". Which was true.

Ironically, they failed to say in my NDA that I couldn't mention the illegal meeting which resulted in my heart attack - only that I couldn't say that was my reason for leaving. Check your Settlement paperwork as it should be in there. Did you perhaps agree to something without realising?

I would presume you are also free to contact the ex-colleague and put them straight as to their confusion...

Check your home/contents insurance in case you have legal cover on there. Quite a few people do and forget that they have it - it will cover legal action in this situation I suspect.

Can recommend a fantastic, fantastic employment solicitor if that helps.

Google seems to be a mix of answers, on the face of it, I'd say it's impersonation and unethical, as for the legal side, that's out of my qualifications.

You should have had advice from a solicitor before signing the settlement agreement. If you didn't, you can ignore it. It isn't binding on you. If you did, consult them as to whether this is a breach of the settlement agreement and what you can do about it. The agreement may have limited your ability to take action against the company for this, although it is clearly unacceptable behaviour by them.

Haven’t read the full thread but the other route here is to claim that this amounts to defamation.

The company has falsely claimed you left abruptly for personal reasons and had mental health difficulties to the extent that you were unable to maintain professional relationships after you left.

Both of those things would stand a very good chance of meeting the threshold for defamation. And the company would have no valid defence that I can think of.

Interesting angle. It defo could have implications for future networking/job prospects if your employer spreads mistruths about your mental health within your industry.

Wtf! Speak to the lawyer who handled the settlement agreement, they could maybe write a letter to them for you

We’d have to see the actual wording of the email but I’m not sure that the email would be found to be defamatory

Would it lower the OP in the estimation of right thinking members of society (which is the legal test) to believe that she had given up her job to care for a seriously ill close family member even at short notice. I’m not at all sure that would meet the test. The fact that it’s untrue is irrelevant if it’s not defamatory.

The second bit might get over the line depending on how it was phrased. Or it might not. “I’d prefer you didn’t reach out to me on LinkedIn during this stressful period as all my focus is on caring for my mum” is not defamatory. “My mental health is shot to pieces and l can’t cope with engaging with anyone on LinkedIn” probably is. So it depends where along the spectrum the actual message falls.

But even if the meaning of the email is defamatory it needs to pass the serious harm test to be actionable and again I am not at all sure the OP will get over that hurdle. There isn’t a serious harm test for a privacy claim which is why it’s often preferred over a defamation claim.

Highly unlikely to get very far with a Data Protection Act (2018) breach unless the OP is prepared to spend time, effort and stress, and even then, no guarantee of any redress.

If the OP were to take the email situation to a solicitor, the first thing they'll want is the exact email wording, plus the person who sent it as an "officer" of the company. If all the OP has is hear-say, they would be unwise to take legal action.

A solicitor's letter to the company with accurate facts may give the employer a bit of a momentary wake-up call and clear message that their action was unethical and they'll just tear it up and throw it in the bin.

The legal cover sold with household insurance tends to very prescriptive and limited to the most frequently occurring employment situation aka low risk cases that have more than 51% likelihood of success. This scenario would be assessed by a panel solicitor who would decline the case and recommend not touching a case like this with a barge pole. They never take cases forward that don't have a significant amount of accurate non-hearsay facts, with a clear cut legal basis on which to progress.

This, not sure it's illegal, but p--- poor.

how strange!! What an oddly personal reason to make up!

put something on social media about remembering your dear mother and how long ago she’s died

Unless the OP's solicitor is stupid enough to have approved that email, there will be no clause in the agreement which allows the company or one of their employees impersonate the OP.

When an employee is given a specific email address that will fall within data protection as it ID's one person. The OP had not been an employee for 2 days when the email was sent.

Fair processing of data
How did the company obtain the data on:

1. the OP's "sick and elderly mother"
   How did the company collect data on OP's dead mother's health?
   When did they get permission from dear mum to disclose her medical data?
   Even the OP had no authority to collect and disclose medical data of a living parent ( yes it happens but company policy should tell Ee's not to do it)

2. the OP's " own mental health"
   How did the company collect data on the impact dear mums sickness was having on her mental health?
   When did they get permission from OP to disclose her medical data?

3. instructions for "reach out via linked"
   When did they get permission from OP to issue instructions on her behalf?

4. the OP "put all my energy into my family"
   How did the company obtain that little jem ?(as the agreement is to enable the OP an exit to new employment)

A lot of employers/managers use informal referrals from their contacts so the linkedin bit is a very nasty method of putting a lie in circulation of future employers while making it hard for the OP to find out

Would it lower the OP in the estimation of right thinking members of society (which is the legal test) to believe that she had given up her job to care for a seriously ill close family member even at short notice. I’m not at all sure that would meet the test. The fact that it’s untrue is irrelevant if it’s not defamatory.

I guess that depends on whether people knew her mom was no longer alive?

I don't think your colleague should forward anything at all because it will be linked to her computer.

I agree that not having the email is the first problem

however the company has a problem as OP's mother is dead

Would it lower the OP in the estimation of right thinking members of society (which is the legal test) to believe that she lied to leave a job saying she had to care for a dead family member even at short notice.

In a lot of jobs a lie on why did you leave your last job is covered under gross misconduct at point of hire.

No, there will not be any clause that allows the company to impersonate OP. However, I have seen settlement agreements where the employer has put in a wide-ranging clause limiting the causes for which the employee can take action against them. It is unlikely there is anything in the settlement agreement that would limit OP's rights to do something about this, but it is not impossible.

i would name and shame them!!! there is no law that u can't keep in touch with whoever tf u want. they are cheeky fks. i would PM everyone and let them know what rogues they work for. they will all suss out themselves who sent the email and who is a lair. i think they have gotten off lightly paying you off and don't want any of the other staff getting any bright ideas. absolute scum.

IMO the company would be in breach of their legal DPA obligations and any clause can only cover lawful actions.
A SAR is a legal right so if there is data the ICO have the duty to determine if the clause qualified as an exemption or not

I suspect that the OP would be sucessful in requesting test case for oversight of fair processing of data as a public interest as the distress caused by sympathy calls the OP (by going around telling people that a dead family member is alive) is "on par" with cold calling the OP about new windows

I said "consider" and "potential" because I have no idea what the OP's existing reputation was. None of us on this forum actually know enough about it to give any better advice than "go to a solicitor with all the facts".

Now we get into innuendo meaning which can be complicated and just layers on expense and uncertainty to bring a claim in defamation when that’s not necessary and not the best option.

But to answer your question to establish the defamatory meaning by innuendo the OP would need to call evidence from witnesses that they both knew that her mother was dead at the time the email was sent and that they received the email either directly or via a third party. Whether any existing employee would want to stick their head so far over the parapet for OP is debatable and I suspect this subgroup would be quite small.

Future employers unless they were the recipient of the email and knew the OP’s mother to be dead, aren’t going to come to the conclusion that she lied about her reasons for leaving the job. And that risk in any event would be extinguished by the OP having taken legal action (just not for defamation for the reasons I’ve explained) in respect of the email.

On the DP issue, the mother’s DP rights are not engaged because she is deceased but the OP does potentially have remedies for DP infringement and those claims are commonly made in parallel with privacy claims and heard together.