An interesting outcome of the GPDR! Does the author have any recourse? Can they sue?
The university wouldn't have an obligation to bring disciplinary proceedings against someone deemed "unpleasant" before calling them such - they would be required to follow their own internal process for raising a disciplinary case.
It sounds like the threshold for a disciplinary case wasn't met in this case. In any event, these sorts of remarks are a grey area and any action to take depends entirely on the specific content of the communications. It's not nice to be called "unpleasant", but it's probably not libellous.
The OP has to show that the statements were published, they are defamatory, and that the OP suffered serious harm as a result.
It'd be for the publisher of the comments to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the comments were either
truthful
fair comment
privileged
Would they win? Maybe, but the cost would probably not be worth it and of course there's the reputational damage caused by being seen as someone willing to litigate against their employer / university, etc.
Also against the universities for breach of the blacklisting prohibitions in the employment act. Their lack of checks and balances against this informal blacklist has left them wide open to be sued.
I've met plenty of stupid people who can pass exams.
If "stupid people" are passing these exams, maybe these are not good exams either.
Finally, thinking in terms of "stupid people" also incorrectly frames intelligence as a scalar, is unhelpful and lacks descriptive power of how one's mental capacity falls short: Are they socially clueless? Are they forgetful? Are they not able to put in the mental work when it comes to answering questions?
If the person in question is not really unpleasant (and I don't know that they are not, but let's take it as given for a moment), my suggestion would be doing some strong networking. If you interact with people at conferences and are clearly not a bad person, then it's easier to defend yourself against the accusations by pointing out their variance with actual experience. In a perfect world, yeah, that work should not be necessary, but nobody's accused the world of being perfect in a long time.
(Ironically, if you pull this off and manage to build a new reputation on your own, then you might actually be able to safely sue.)
If you win enough in damages then you don't need to worry too much about earning in the future.
No idea how likely that is, particularly after paying attorneys' fees.
We're only hearing one side, but given his professional accomplishment of people using his textbook in Masters courses, this comes across as a personal vendetta. You don't say those sort of things about someone who clearly does have talent unless you want to cause harm.
https://www.burnetts.co.uk/publications/blogs/libel-and-slan...
In Austria it's still illegal to make true comments that offend religion sensibilities.
Wasn't justification a different name for a truth defence?
[0] http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporti...
Honest opinion: It is a defence for defamation, to show the statement complained of was a statement of opinion; that it indicated, in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion; that an honest person could have held the opinion on any fact which existed when the statement was published, including any fact in a privileged statement that was pre-published. The defence is defeated if the claimant shows the defendant did not hold the opinion.
The respondent would then have to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the comments were either true, or fair comment, or privileged.
Defamation cases are very expensive to bring and a good outcome is not at all certain.
Ignoring the legal arm-chairing; universities and colleges retaining staff who discriminate students based on intellectual disabilities could face down some bad PR.
So will this come down to any email which passes through an officially recognized organization, be it government or corporation or educational, as open to inspection and possible litigation? Talk about an Orwellian nightmare
The person you are suggesting has the right to privacy is acting in an official capacity, paid for by public money. These are not personal emails.
Just that fact that one person is bringing a litigation, is not a valid reason to mark everything top secret.
If you make everything in the machinations of government secret, then these things (and much worse) will still happen, but there will be no transparency or recourse. That is the worst possible outcome.
Is saying your black coworker under-performs a form a racism ? Your female coworker being stupid would be sexism (but only if you're a man of course) ?
Blacklisting at work has been illegal in the UK since 2010