If sued, the non-support of the book and termination of employment are strong defensive actions.
Very true, and libel is a very strong reason for suit here, but not the only reason to fire the librarian.
Librarians are supposed to protect their patrons' privacy and confidentiality. It's specifically stated in the ALA Code of Conduct (which someone helpfully quoted at the Luddington forum). What this librarian did was essentially describe several patrons' appearance and in-library behavior in an identifying way, thus violating their privacy and confidentiality regardless of how many "this is a work of fiction" notices she plasters on top.
Also: I'm not happy with Scott's bit (in the Luddington forum post) about "Funny no one's come forward and complained about being in her book--maybe they're afraid to admit it was them?" in your post. For crying out loud, if you were depicted in such an unsavory way, would YOU "admit" it was you? Think about the guy accused of being a sexual predator. He's going to come up to the library head dude, point at the page, and say, "That's me she's accusing, except I'm not a sexual predator even though I do in fact look at things you don't approve of on your internet for about six hours on a Sunday and in fact I do stink of whatever she said I stunk of, which is how I knew it was me she was accusing and not some made-up character" or whatever?
Hell no. Even if all you'd been doing was sitting there reading email, and you'd had an embarrassing 15-minute fart attack, and she described you as "That homeless pervert jerk came in again, checking his email for any young innocent things taking his rendezvous bait. He wore a green sweater and blue jeans. He must have got a nibble after all, because he got so excited he farted for 15 minutes straight"--you'd go up to the library head and point out how you know it was you she made false accusations of? Green sweater, sure, but embarrassing 15-minute fart attack that you hoped no one noticed and made you want to disappear?
HELL no. In fact, I doubt anyone she accused as a sexual predator is going to want to come up and say, "she accused me,"
regardless of whether the identifying feature was embarrassing. In light of the pervasive "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" meme, isn't it likely that the reaction to bringing it up and denying it would be, "Why is he bothered by the accusation if he's innocent? Methinks the pervert doth protest too much!"
It's a lot more likely that those insulted, degrade, falsely accused, and whose privacy was violated by this brick-length missive haven't actually read it. It's by Publish America and no store in town wants to sell it; besides, a good many of those she "revealed" are homeless and have no money to buy the book. (Another reason not to speak up. If you're homeless, tattered, and unwashed--
because you're homeless--who do you think is going to listen to your side of the story?) But if they have, I can understand easily why they aren't quick to jump up, point at the unflattering but identifying description--and possibly life-wrecking false accusation--and say, "That was me she's talking about and I'm offended!"