A False Performance Review Is Not Automatically Defamation

Your final review said things you know are untrue, and a few weeks later you were let go.

It feels like the kind of lie the law should punish, and many people in that position reach for the same word before they reach for anything else.

That word is defamation.  In California, it is harder to win in this setting than most people expect.

Civ. Code § 47(c) gives a qualified privilege to statements made without malice to people who share an interest in the subject, which covers most performance reviews and internal discipline.  Whether the privilege holds depends on proof of malice, which turns on what the reviewer knew and why they said it.

In Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 301, the Court of Appeal held that an employee cannot recover separately for defamation when the false statements were simply the means to a termination and the only harm came from losing the job.  How that applies depends on where the statements went and what harm followed them.

The California Supreme Court granted review in May 2025 (S289581).  Under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(1), Hearn has no binding effect while review is pending and can be cited only for persuasive value.

So the law may still move.  It has not moved yet.

Two things can change the picture.  A false statement that follows you to your next job, such as one given to a prospective employer, can cause harm separate from the firing itself, and that is analyzed differently.

The firing may also be the stronger claim.  If the review was written to justify a decision made for an unlawful reason, the problem may be the reason, not the words.

If a false review was the paperwork behind your firing, the claim worth examining may be about the firing rather than the words.  That is what a first conversation is for.

Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a no-charge initial consultation.  The facts determine whether you have a claim – and how much of a conversation that takes.

This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces.  It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts – no lawyer can guarantee a result.  Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes.  AI may have been used to create this post.  All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication.