Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Careers - Employment
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson
Actuarial Jobs

Visit our site for the most up to date jobs for actuaries.

Actuarial Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Health, Life, Pension and Non-Tradtional Jobs.

Actuarial Meeting Schedule
Browse this year's meetings and which recruiters will attend.

Contact DW Simpson
Have a question?
Let's talk.
You'll be glad you did.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-07-2018, 09:23 AM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,873
Default

Only vaguely recall but I think he was known to be crazy and brought a gun to the second place which then sued under some theory that the first place had a responsibility to public safety and had been negligent.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-08-2018, 08:01 AM
pragmatist pragmatist is offline
Member
CAS Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pragmatist View Post
It is that deliberate falsity what lands them in trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
That happens for some employers, but isn't really true as a general statement. Many employers have gotten in trouble for stating something factually true, or for an opinion that was supported by some facts.
Stating something factually true may carry liability if it violates a settlement agreement or legislation which prohibits such disclosure (example: certain medical information that is not relevant to the job). But those are exceptions rather than the general rule.

As for stating an opinion that was supported by some facts, it really depends on how they used those facts. A person/employer could cite "some facts" as a premise -or even to juxtapose them- in their attempt to make their false statement more credible. Courts disapprove of the juxtaposition and/or misuse [even of truthful facts] if they are aimed at devising a falsehood.

Likewise, a defamer cannot avoid liability in court just by framing his falsehood as a statement of opinion through phrases such as "I believe ..." or "in my opinion ...".
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-08-2018, 08:29 AM
Colonel Smoothie's Avatar
Colonel Smoothie Colonel Smoothie is online now
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
College: Jamba Juice University
Favorite beer: AO Amber Ale
Posts: 47,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
Only vaguely recall but I think he was known to be crazy and brought a gun to the second place which then sued under some theory that the first place had a responsibility to public safety and had been negligent.
oh yeah, I remember that...
__________________
Recommended Readings for the EL Actuary || Recommended Readings for the EB Actuary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigmeister General View Post
Don't you even think about sending me your resume. I'll turn it into an origami boulder and return it to you.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-08-2018, 09:47 AM
Quasi's Avatar
Quasi Quasi is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: underneath the hump
Posts: 7,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
Only vaguely recall but I think he was known to be crazy and brought a gun to the second place which then sued under some theory that the first place had a responsibility to public safety and had been negligent.
I thought that was why companies will also state whether or not the person is eligible for rehire. You don't say why they are not eligible, but that would cover you in cases like this. I have always heard companies would say whether or not they are eligible for rehire.
__________________
Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-08-2018, 09:49 AM
Quasi's Avatar
Quasi Quasi is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: underneath the hump
Posts: 7,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarinetist View Post
Quick little anecdote: I recently saw a job posting with a well-known company which asked for the candidate's three most recent performance reviews on paper, and ratings. It's ridiculous what employers ask of their candidates.
I was once asked for a copy of my most recent performance review for an actuarial job. I agree there is no way for them to confirm it is authentic so people could forge up a great one.
__________________
Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-08-2018, 10:05 AM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pragmatist View Post
Stating something factually true may carry liability if it violates a settlement agreement or legislation which prohibits such disclosure (example: certain medical information that is not relevant to the job).
For that reason, or for literally any other reason whatsoever, if a court decides it carries liability. The rest of your post is also meaningless "I'm sure what I read in a book is how the law always works" drivel.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-08-2018, 10:08 AM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quasi View Post
I thought that was why companies will also state whether or not the person is eligible for rehire. You don't say why they are not eligible, but that would cover you in cases like this. I have always heard companies would say whether or not they are eligible for rehire.
Yeah, that may be why that was added. That question is relatively new in the grand scheme, I can remember the first time I heard that asked.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-08-2018, 11:46 AM
pragmatist pragmatist is offline
Member
CAS Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
For that reason, or for literally any other reason whatsoever, if a court decides it carries liability. The rest of your post is also meaningless "I'm sure what I read in a book is how the law always works" drivel.
Please try being less arrogant when you belittle others' respectful replies, especially where the inaccurate, non-verifiable, or unsupported comments might be yours.

We are discussing potential liabilities as a likely reason why an employer/manager declines a candidate's request for recommendation. My remark that legislation prohibits an employer to make certain disclosures is not meaningless "drivel", but law enacted in various jurisdictions. Here are just two examples:

(1) Michigan statute MCL 423.452 strikes the employer's immunity if "the information disclosed was false or misleading" or "the disclosure was specifically prohibited by a state or federal statute".

(2) Florida statute 435.10 addresses the issue deliberate falsity similarly.

Apropos of your allusion to employers' "opinion that was supported by some facts", the Supreme Court of Texas held that
"a plaintiff can bring a claim for defamation when discrete facts, literally or substantially true, are published in such a way that they create a substantially false and defamatory impression by omitting material facts or juxtaposing facts in a misleading way", Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103, 115 (2000). Many other jurisdictions have adopted that ruling, and I suspect that you would have a hard time convincing them that this is drivel.

My reply about framing a statement as opinion is supported on what the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:
"If a speaker says, 'In my opinion John Jones is a liar,' he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. Even if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications", Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1990).

I understand you dislike being contradicted. But sometimes it is prudent to refrain from disqualifying someone as you did here, for it might turn out that this other person knows (at least, better than you) what he is talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-12-2018, 04:45 PM
HenryGale's Avatar
HenryGale HenryGale is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: where I live
Studying for new job
Favorite beer: H2O
Posts: 787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarinetist View Post
The company starts with a C and ends with an L. I can't find the job posting now, but I think it was not actuarial.
Must be CUNA Mutual... will keep in mind LOL
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-12-2018, 04:50 PM
clarinetist clarinetist is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Studying for Rcpp, Git
Posts: 6,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryGale View Post
Must be CUNA Mutual... will keep in mind LOL
One-word company name.
__________________
If you want to add me on LinkedIn, PM me.

Why I hate Microsoft Access.

Studying/Reading: Machine Learning and Pattern Recognition
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.15754 seconds with 9 queries