Nothing on this page is advice about your job, and no article can be. If you want your own facts looked at, a Minnesota employment attorney can do that — and several of the deadlines described on this site are short enough that waiting is itself a decision.
Also called: self-publication; compelled self-publication defamation.
Accordingly, we hold that in an action for defamation, the publication requirement may be satisfied where the plaintiff was compelled to publish a defamatory statement to a third person if it was foreseeable to the defendant that the plaintiff would be so compelled.
Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 389 N.W.2d 876, 888 (Minn. 1986). The court described the doctrine’s reach in the same passage: it “does no more than hold the originator of the defamatory statement liable for damages caused by the statement where the originator knows, or should know, of circumstances whereby the defamed person has no reasonable means of avoiding publication of the statement or avoiding the resulting damages.” It does not remove the other elements of defamation, and it does not create a claim out of a false reason delivered only to you.
Where this comes up
- Repeating Your Employer's False Reason to a Job Interviewer Can Be the "Publication" in a Minnesota Defamation Case — but Compulsion, Foreseeability, and Proof of the Interviews Are All Required
- Minnesota Gives You Fifteen Working Days to Demand the Reason You Were Fired — and the Duty Never Arises Unless You Ask in Writing
- A Minnesota employer may say far more in a reference than dates of employment — including documented theft, harassment, or violence — and § 181.967 is a shield for the employer, not a gag rule
Sources checked September 8, 2026. Citations independently verified against the primary source September 8, 2026.