There aren’t many hard-and-fast rules in the law. One of them has been that truth is an absolute defense to libel, meaning that if I print something unflattering about someone, that person can’t sue me for libel if what I print is true. Journalists especially love having that kind of certainty with respect to what they print. Thankfully, a jury in Massachusetts understands how important that is:
It's the libel case that set free speech advocates reeling: Noonan v. Staples Inc. In February a federal appeals court held that truth is not always an absolute defense to claims of libel -- and kicked the case back to a jury.
Now the people have spoken. Late last week, a Massachusetts jury found that a mass e-mail sent out by Staples about an employee who was fired for violating the company's travel and expense policy was not sent with actual malice.
The jury issued its verdict on Oct. 8, eight months after the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals kept alive former Staples manager Alan Noonan's lawsuit, which sought to hold Staples liable for the humiliation caused by the e-mail even though the information in the e-mail was true. The court ruled that the e-mail could give rise to a libel claim because it singled him out and humiliated him.
Source: Law.com - Jury Says No to Libel Claim Over Truthful E-Mail