At Will Employment negates any chance of winning a lawsuit for training a new employee unless a contract was involved and it specified working for a specified time period (and they usually have out clauses). As an employee, she can leave because she doesn't like her bosses' name or because a coworker smells like patchouli or because they play really bad music in the elevators. As an employer, they can fire her for almost any reason that doesn't involve discrimination of some kind (handicap, gender, sexual preference, etc).

My point is that even if she doesn't name the company, it could be for reasons entirely unrelated to a potential lawsuit so it proves nothing.

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.

What about the torts of defamation or false light?  If I recall correctly, a private figure (like her boss) needn't prove any actual damages to recover nominal damages.  In fact, because it's injurious to his profession, it may qualify as defamation per se in some jurisdictions, although this isn't my area, so I could be wrong.

Mind you, the damages really will be nominal, so the only reason to press suit would be to be a dick (one with too much money on his hands...).

I'm just trying to help you understand that this is fake. So far you've rebutted most of what I've presented as evidence pretty successfully though not entirely. We'll see more about it tomorrow, but it's just so obvious. The background is so obviously a set, the woman is so obviously an actor or model, and the risk is just too high for someone to actually do that. While entertaining, only an idiot would entertain the thought of doing this to their company, mostly for future hiring obstacles. She has no proof, can easily be googled, displayed unprofessionalism, etc etc.

This is such a viral ad for theChive (who broke the story), a temp or hiring agency, or even scottrade/farmville/techcrunch. I want to do viral. I can spot my own. This is so viral it's not even funny.

Did you notice her book collection? Yeah it's totally real. Large collection of star wars books, hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, wheel of time, van gogh, and she actually owns encyclopedias. As a broker. One collection of books is even in a pyramid! That is the fakest fakerie of fakington's tall tales

EDIT: On top of it all, it's a copy of something someone else did which has really witty and clevere and already posted. That's a number 1 hallmark of viral. Copying something that's already been done.

At Will Employment negates any chance of winning a lawsuit for training a new employee unless a contract was involved and it specified working for a specified time period (and they usually have out clauses). As an employee, she can leave because she doesn't like her bosses' name or because a coworker smells like patchouli or because they play really bad music in the elevators. As an employer, they can fire her for almost any reason that doesn't involve discrimination of some kind (handicap, gender, sexual preference, etc).

My point is that even if she doesn't name the company, it could be for reasons entirely unrelated to a potential lawsuit so it proves nothing.