Imagine that a previous employer said something bad about you during a reference check, and what they said wasn't true, and it caused you to lose a potential new job. You'd definitely have a good reason to sue them.

Now, imagine the same scenario, except what your previous employer said was true. But you sued them anyway.

In both cases, you have the ability to sue. In both cases, unless there is some very strong and obvious evidence against you, a judge and/or jury might take your side.

From the perspective of one of your former employers, it's just not worth the risk to give details about why someone was separated from a company.

People exaggerate the amount of risk for this kind of thing, but the benefit to the company giving the bad reference is also essentially zero.

I agree with both your points. To be honest if the same signal is sent by merely confirming employment dates but not literally disparaging the former employee, I fail to see how there’s any additional legal protection. The implication is tortious interferus in both cases.

That's why many companies don't give any details at all, whether positive or negative. This way your line of argument doesn't apply; not from a logical point of view and also not from a legal point of view: no signal is sent at all.

I agree with you too.

For the sake of my argument, I was conjuring the scenario where companies give either positive recommendations or bare minimum ones.

why say anything when you can just say nothing. they don't care about it that much as long as the offender is gone now

> What does it mean that there is too much liability? What liability do you have for saying true things?

Problem is, in many countries, it's not a fact until a court has made a judgement.

Bearing in mind that the accused employees are technically and legally innocent, you are introducing a few problems. First, the disadvantages of calling these people criminals:

1. They can (and probably will win) sue you for calling them a criminal.

2. The resulting news that a court found against you is a bigger problem. You called someone a criminal, they sued you for it and won. Now you have to deal with the fact that as far as the public goes, you just fired and shamed innocent people.

3. Finally, after the news gets out, all the employees who were laid off in the same round and with same accusations now have legal precedent to challenge your accusations of criminality. And due to precedent, they will almost surely win.

Now, the disadvantages of giving only their start/end dates and job title when called:

[uhh, I can't think of anything ...]

It all boils down to "there is some risk in badmouthing them" vs "there is literally no risk, 0% risk at all, is saying nothing about their behaviour".

That opens Blizzard up to litigation by the fired employee. At least more than not saying anything.

Even if you think something is true, someone else might contest that, and ask a court to decide. Court battles are costly and time consuming.

The liability to Blizzard or the firing company is that the fired employee sues Blizzard, “I did not get these jobs because they tarnished my name to potential employers.”

Because no corporate investigation has to meet the same standard as a court of law. You can fire someone if you think they did something wrong. But when you make statements, it's possible the employee will claim it is libel and you will suddenly need to prove their misconduct at a higher standard in a court of law.

IANAL, but basically it's not worth it. The company already has what they want: Not working with that employee. Anything past that is unnecessary risk.