6. After being disciplined for criticizing a customer in an email (sent from his personal email account on a company computer), Joe threatens to sue the company for invasion of privacy. Unfortunately, Joe may not know this but his expectation of privacy has no basis in law. As a matter of fact, whenever an employee uses an employer 's electronics devices for whatever purpose, whether for company or personal use, that employee automatically relinquishes his expectation of privacy per se, as established by the law. Not only that the courts accord employers the power to conduct reasonable monitoring of employee 's communication to which they had given prior consent. In this context, it can be assumed that the company had such consent from Joe. …show more content…
From what this case turns out to be, as determined by the facts surrounding it, if our organization was set up such that our supervisors have the power to fire employees under their supervision, the company could have potentially found its entangled in a Sarbanes-Oxley lawsuit. There is no doubt that had this morally upright secretary been fired for standing her ground in the face of our rogue supervisor 's demand for her to cook the books the company could have been in violation not only for attempting to file a fraudulent expense account but for taking retaliatory action against her for refusing to do such. On the other hand had the secretary connived with her boss, the supervisor and prepared the false expense report, the company 's reputation could have again been in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A federal law that prohibits publicly traded companies such as ours, in engaging in fraudulence accounting and financial practices. Such a scenario could have ruined the corporation 's reputation and expose it to an enormous fine from the Federal Trade Commission. My course of action in light of the above would be to fire the supervisor his professional malpractice in attempting to falsify company
The second trial I attended was a personal injury civil jury trial with Judge Carrier. This was a rather interesting case of Jennifer Wolfe VS D & W LLC. Within this case, Jennifer Wolfe attended a bachelorette party eight years ago with her now sister-in-law, who was the maid of honor. The story started out with everyone meeting at a house and the maid of honor was mad that the designated person to bring alcohol, forgot to bring the alcohol. The alcohol drank at this house was whatever was there, which was a few beers and a box of wine.
As in Buck, when the plaintiff was terminated from his management position and offered a lower role in the company, here Chigurh was given the ultimatum to take an inferior position or quit. In Buck, the Court cautioned becoming involved in day-to-day business decisions and that employers hold more discretion in terminating high level employees. The McConkey Court held, “where the complaining employee is in an executive position, makes top level policy and strategic decisions, and great trust is placed in his judgment, courts must be cautious in second guessing employment decisions.” McConkey, ¶ 33. This decision gives a spot on interpretation of Chigurh’s former duties, and it is likely that the court will determine Chigurh was let go for a legitimate business
The Plaintiff counsel demonstrated that just by looking at the invoices, one would have revealed that they were fake. The invoices lacked shipping numbers, customer order numbers, and other information. The court ruled that given the suspicious nature of the large December sales entry recorded by Romberg, the court stated that Touche should have especially reviewed the December sales invoices. Touche auditors found many errors, while company’s inventory, that collectively caused the inventory account to be overstated by more than $300,000, an overstatement of 90%.
Summary of Facts Herman informs Amador that Linda has not reported, to work that evening, the evening before or on several other evenings during the prior few weeks. As a result of this discussion, Amador learns that Linda was spending the evenings with her ex-boyfriend. Several days later, Amador commits suicide. Amador’s family sues the bank for invasion of privacy, alleging that Herman did not have the right to inform Amador that Linda had not reported for work Issues 1. Does the plaintiff have the right to sue the bank for wrongful death or for the violation of the invasion of privacy.
Below please find a detailed memo outlining the violations of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct committed by attorney Homer Simpson in relation to his former Client, Edna Krabappel: In Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, it is understood that Mr. Simpson represented himself as, “a specialist in employment discrimination.” As stated in Rule 7.4: Communication of Fields of Practice and Specialization of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduction: (c) Except when identifying certificates, awards or recognitions issued to him or her by an agency or organization, a lawyer may not use the terms “certified,’’ “specialist,’’ “expert,’’ or any other, similar terms to describe his qualifications as a lawyer or his qualifications in any subspecialty
The ruling was made on the case by the New York State Supreme Court upon frivolous litigation. Issue Under the New York’s Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, does the plaintiff have a valid claim for violation of his right to privacy? Holdings
Summary In the article “Actress from law firm ad files $1 million for breach of contract lawsuit," the author, Barbara Ross, Ginger Adams Otis, explains why actress Elena Aroaz. Believed that her contract which was for her to appear in a 30 second commercial only in local areas for a period of 1 year. Aroaz filed the breach of contract lawsuit saying “After the spoof ad became a sensation — even getting a mention in the New York Times — the producer licensed it and the rights to Aroaz’s image to several other law firms around the country without her knowledge, she says in court papers.” According to this article it seems that her claim would fall into a breach of contract.
One of, if not, the most provocative arguments Kerr offers in his article is that the third-party doctrine should not be framed in terms of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in which a person “waives” their reasonable expectation of privacy, but rather as a consent doctrine. In his view, what we voluntarily disclose to third parties eliminates Fourth Amendment protection because of implied consent. Specifically, a person voluntarily discloses information to a third party if they do so knowingly. Consequently, searches, if a government agent’s conduct is deemed as such, are reasonable because the person allowed the government to do so. Kerr’s example for his principle is problematic.
Goldman v Weinberger is a case in which Goldman sued Weinberger because his freedom of religion was not exercised in the United States Air force. Goldman sued him because his religion called for him to wear a yarmulke to show that God was the highest form of life. For years he wore the accessory. He was later told to take off the accessory and he refused the proposal. A couple of days later “ In 1981 he was required to testify as a defense witness at a court-martial ” according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_v._Weinberger .
In making its Smith ruling, the Court considered whether the person invoking the protection of the Fourth Amendment could claim a “legitimate expectation of privacy” that has been invaded by government action, and stated that such an inquiry normally addresses two questions: (1) whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and (2) whether the individual 's expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.”
As government employees, we are expected to know right from wrong. Government agencies employ memorandums, policies and procedures to keep us abreast with what is to be determined as incompatible activities. In this case, we have a government employee who contracted her husband’s personal business to fulfill her department’s needs wherein she had a direct relationship to the company. This unethical behavior attacks the employee’s character and trustworthiness with the department.
Nowadays, “privacy” is becoming a popular conversation topic. Many people believe that if they do not do anything wrong in the face of technology and security, then they have nothing to hide. Professor Daniel J. Solove of George Washington University Law School, an internationally known expert in privacy law, wrote the article Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in May of 2011. Solove explains what privacy is and the value of privacy, and he insists that the ‘nothing to hide’ argument is wrong in this article. In the article, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’”, Daniel J. Solove uses ethos, pathos, and logos effectively by using strong sources, using
One of the cases is the City of Ontario v. Quon in California that went from 2009 to 2010. The cases involves police officers who were given text-messaging pagers and one of the officers messages were read without their permission. The police department did not have an official text messaging privacy policy but they did have a general policy stating “employees shouldn't expect privacy when using internet, e-mail and internet use and can be monitored with or without notice.” The police department verbally told them the texting pagers were considered e-mail and were subject to general policy. In the supreme court they decided that the reading of the texts was justified because it was reasonable.
Deception was key and topics like this seem very accessible to employees but with everything you do even if no one finds out there still are repercussions for one's actions. Caskey, J.(2013). 6 April 2012 Dividend Policy at Firms Accused of Accounting Fraud.
Workplace monitoring covers the legal allegations of balancing and managing organizational needs to protect and preserve the workplace with the expectation of privacy from its employees. Employers must conduct appropriate steps to reduce the risk of misconduct and other losses by monitoring and establishing policies to protect its employees and property. In this paper, the topic for discussion will provide an analysis of the federal court’s decisions on issues concerning employees’ privacy and limits on an employer’s rights to search and seizure in four separate case studies. Additionally, the discussion will include the impact that the decisions had on an employer’s responsibility and the employee’s rights to privacy.