Workplace Defamation, Anti-SLAPP, and False Criminal Accusation Case Study in Oregon

Representative Case Study of Workplace Defamation, Anti-SLAPP, and False Criminal Accusations

Overview

This case began the way many defamation cases do, not with a lawsuit, but with rumors.

A professional in Oregon started hearing that people at work were “concerned.” Then came questions. Then distancing. Eventually, the accusations hardened into something more serious: claims that he had committed crimes, that he was dangerous, that others should be careful around him.

None of these statements were true. None were made in court. None were made to law enforcement in a protected way. They spread quietly, through conversations, texts, and workplace chatter, where reputational damage is hardest to undo.

When the plaintiff sought accountability, the defendant attempted to shut the case down immediately using Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute.

The Core Problem

False accusations of criminal conduct carry a unique kind of harm. They don’t just offend, they isolate. Careers stall. People stop returning calls. Supervisors start documenting instead of mentoring.

In this case, the defendant attempted to reframe those accusations as “concerns” and “safety-related speech,” arguing they were protected and immune from civil liability.

That framing is common. It is also often wrong.

Legal Issues Addressed

• Defamation based on false criminal accusations

• Private and workplace gossip disguised as “reporting”

• Anti-SLAPP misuse in personal disputes

• Intentional interference with professional and economic relations

• Emotional distress caused by sustained reputational attacks

Strategy Used

From the outset, the case was built with the expectation that an anti-SLAPP motion would be filed.

• Rather than reacting to the motion, the strategy focused on clarity and restraint:

• Separating protected proceedings from unprotected publications

• Identifying who actually needed to hear the statements—and who did not

• Framing the conduct as a course of behavior, not a single slip

• Using defamation as the improper means supporting interference claims

• Keeping pleadings clean and evidence where it belonged

The goal was not theatrics. The goal was survival, getting the case past the procedural choke point and into a posture where facts mattered.

Outcome

The court denied the anti-SLAPP motion.

The ruling confirmed that Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute does not shield private defamatory conduct simply because it is later mentioned in litigation or described as a safety concern. The plaintiff preserved his claims and leverage, and the case moved forward.