By the time it gets to HR, a lot of things can happen already. HR may not see everything.
Theoretically, if she were saying things that were actually, factually, provably false – and not just her opinion – and she made the statements with actual malice (subjectively knowing they were false), there could theoretically be a claim for defamation. But that would be virtually impossible to prove and there would be all sorts of legal hoops to jump through since her communications would be legally “privileged” (and thus would require a higher bar than regular defamation claims). That’s another way of saying he’d never be able to prevail on a claim. And litigation is brutal, especially for individuals.
Too often, problem people are promoted “up and out” because that is the easiest way to get rid of them. Then it becomes some other department’s problem and the problem person looks good on paper because of the promotion. We can all hope for the day when someone decides to deal with the problem properly by getting rid of the problem person!
I remember this happening with a big school system that needed a new head honcho. They didn’t feel they had enough qualified applicants for the job so they hired someone with a really troubled past resume. “But he’s the only one with experience”. What? He messed up! “But he has experience”. You know where this is going… Well, sure enough, he tanked in a big way and I think he’s actually in prison now.
Those communications are not legally privileged at all. They aren’t with a lawyer or requested by counsel and certainly didn’t pertain to litigation.
They are “privileged” in the defamation sense of privilege, not attorney-client privilege or other evidentiary privilege. Maybe the use of the term “privileged” in this context is unique to California law, but under California defamation law, a communication is “privileged” if it made between interested persons for certain purposes. So, for example, a reference provided for a job applicant is considered “privileged.” It is not an absolute privilege; it can be overcome by a showing of malice. See Cal. Civ. Code sec 47©. I had assumed other states used the same terminology but that may not be the case. (This is an entirely different concept from an evidentiary privilege).
ETA: i just looked quickly and it looks like at least 38 states have the concept of “qualified privilege” built into their defamation law. Don’t know the ins and outs as to how it would apply under the laws of those states.
Sorry- I was spacing out on the context there!