Actually, yes. That's not far from the truth. You can go ahead and argue it but I'll take my girlfriend's word for it since she's finished about eight years of schooling, passed the bar, and is now a law clerk for a judge and writes about the law and advises rulings for the judge on a daily basis.
Whether she mentions the company name or not has nothing to do with what we're talking about here and it proves nothing. On both sides of this case, there simply isn't enough relevant fact to do much of anything for or against either other party. What will the boss sue for? You can't sue for speculative damages. Therefore, he has to prove that her email caused him financial harm (ie. line-by-line breakdown of damages, not "I think I've lost clients"). Public embarrassment is not a legitimate reason to sue in the eyes of the court. In her case, she has to prove that he called her a HPOA, which will be incredibly difficult because it's her word versus his and the third party on the phone will probably deny having heard it just to stay out of the mess.
Who wins from a lawsuit stemming from this farce? Short answer, no one.
Why do you think the Enquirer gets away with writing the shit it does? It's just too bloody hard to go after them and prove with a dollar amount the damages that have been wrought.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
