Question 1

Abby works for JennyJo Boutique,which is owned by Jenny.One day,Jenny escorts Abby to a back room,where she is given a polygraph test related to recent inventory losses.It is determined that Abby had nothing to do with the theft.In this case,Abby has:

Accepted Answer

In this case, Abby likely has no legal recourse against JennyJo based on intrusion into seclusion because the polygraph was a reasonable way of gathering information about a justified business purpose (finding out who was stealing inventory from the store). Polygraphs and other tests may constitute a wrongful invasion that is objectionable to a reasonable person. On the other hand, if the employer can articulate a justifiable business purpose for the inquiry/invasion, the conduct may be deemed acceptable.

Question 2

Under the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act,a judicial warrant is required to grant access to sensitive data.

Accepted Answer

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act grants access to sensitive data with only a court order rather than a judicial warrant, among other changes, and imposes or enhances civil and criminal penalties for knowingly or intentionally aiding terrorists. It expanded states' rights with regard to Internet surveillance technology, including workplace surveillance and amending the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Multiple Choice Questions

Question 3

The Privacy Act of 1974,originally enacted to apply only to government employees,was extended to cover private sector employees in 1977.

Accepted Answer

The Privacy Act of 1974 regulates the release of personal information about federal employees by federal agencies. In 1977, the Privacy Protection Study Commission concluded that the Privacy Act should not be extended to private employers but that private sector employees should be given many new privacy protections.

Question 4

Leslie's supervisor,Greg,asks her about her living arrangements and with whom she lives.She refuses to answer Greg,and Greg fires her.Which of the following statements is most likely to be true in this case?

Accepted Answer

Leslie's rights are not violated because it is legal for employers to ask their employees about their living arrangements. It is not a breach of an employee's right to privacy for an employer to ask with whom the employee lives. Thus, Leslie's privacy rights are not violated in this case.

Question 5

In the context of the right to privacy,an employer's legitimate interests are given priority over the employer's responsibility to protect employees' and customers' personal information.

Accepted Answer

The right to privacy is not only balanced with the arguably legitimate interests of an employer but also with the employer's responsibility to protect employees' and customers' personal information. Theft of computerized customer and employee records has increased dramatically over the last decade, and the costs associated can be enormous.

Question 6

Andrew works for the Department of Health and Human Services in the accounting department.David,the head of the department,storms into Andrew's office demanding to search the files and all records of payments made by the department to BT Holland Construction Corp.Andrew attempts to leave the office during the search,but David blocks the way and asks him to stay until the review of all the files is complete.Which of the following statements is most likely to be true in this scenario?

Accepted Answer

In this scenario, Andrew has a claim for false imprisonment as he was detained. When an employee is detained during a search, the employee may have a claim for false imprisonment, which is defined as a total restraint on freedom to move against the employee's will, such as keeping an employee in one area of an office.

Question 7

Which of the following statements is true of the reliefs granted by the Privacy Act for employees?

Accepted Answer

The Privacy Act of 1974 regulates the release of personal information about federal employees by federal agencies. The Privacy Act grants employees two options for relief: criminal penalties and civil remedies, including damages and injunctive relief.

Question 8

Jackson was employed by the police department.His brother,Jared,was running for mayor.Jackson conducted wiretapping to find out the political views of the people in the city to help Jared with his political campaign.When the police department learned about this,Jackson was fired for unauthorized wiretapping.Which of the following statements is most likely to be true in this situation?

Accepted Answer

Jackson has violated the law as it is illegal to intercept messages related to political views. Title III of the Federal Wiretap Act does not authorize noncriminal intelligence gathering, nor does it authorize interceptions related to social or political views. As Jackson has intercepted messages related to political views, his termination was justified.

Question 9

Where the state attempts to infringe on anything that has been determined to be a fundamental right,that infringement or restriction must be justified by a compelling state interest for the restriction to be allowed.

Accepted Answer

Where the state attempts to infringe on anything that has been determined to be a fundamental right, that infringement or restriction is subject to the strict scrutiny of the courts. For the restriction to be allowed, the state must show that the restriction is justified by a compelling state interest.

Question 10

Suzy is employed as a secretary for a federal government agency.Her supervisor insinuates that there are copies of her emails with negative references in her personnel file.Suzy demands to see her personnel file,but her supervisor refuses to grant her access to her files.In this case,her supervisor violates the _____.

Accepted Answer

In this case, Suzy's supervisor violates the Privacy Act. Under the Privacy Act, employees should have access to their own personnel files, and there should be some way for them to find out the purposes for which the files are being used. As Suzy is denied access to her personnel files, her supervisor violates the Privacy Act.

Question 11

Gerard is a high-level employee at the U.S.Department of State.He found out that the department leaked confidential information about him without his consent.In this case,Gerard can sue the Department of State as his rights have been violated according to the _____.

Accepted Answer

In this case, Gerard can sue the Department of State as his rights have been violated according to the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act of 1974 regulates the release of personal information about federal employees by federal agencies. Specifically, but for 11 stated exceptions, no federal agency may release information about an employee that contains the means for identifying that employee without the employee's prior written consent. As the Department of State violated Gerard's privacy, it is liable under the Privacy Act.

Question 12

Paul lives in New York.Paul's employer,Susan,supports the Republican Party,whereas Paul supports the Democratic Party.Susan subtly hints that Paul would get a raise if he votes for the Republicans,but Paul votes for the Democrats instead.When she finds out,Susan demotes Paul.In this case,Susan's action is illegal.

Accepted Answer

New York's lifestyle discrimination statute prohibits employment decisions or actions based on four categories of off-duty activity: legal recreational activities, consumption of legal products, political activities, and membership in a union. So, Susan's action is illegal.

Question 13

No comprehensive federal workplace privacy legislation exists.

Accepted Answer

No comprehensive federal workplace privacy legislation exists. The protections that do exist arise from a motley collection of inferences from the Constitution, limited-purpose federal laws, assorted state laws, and some common law (court-created through case law).

Question 14

The Supreme Court,in Griswold v.Connecticut,held that restricting a married couple's use of birth control devices is constitutional.

Accepted Answer

The right to privacy was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut when the court held that a Connecticut statute restricting a married couple's use of birth control devices unconstitutionally infringed on the right to marital privacy. There are three ways in which privacy may be legally protected: by the Constitution (federal or state), by federal and/or state statutes, and by the common law.

Question 15

Lane worked as the public assistance coordinator for the county.Her supervisor,Herald,received information that Lane was engaged in food stamp fraud.She was fired after Herald searched her office and found evidence against her.Which of the following statements is most likely to be true in this case?

Accepted Answer

In this case, Lane has no recourse because Herald had reasonable grounds to suspect that the search would reveal she was engaged in food stamp fraud. A search of an employee's office by a supervisor will be justified at its inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.

Question 16

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act stipulates that employers can use protected health information in making employment decisions without prior consent.

Accepted Answer

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act stipulates that employers cannot use protected health information in making employment decisions without prior consent. Protected health information includes all medical records or other individually identifiable health information.

Question 17

Employment-at-will means that the employee serves at the will of the employer.

Accepted Answer

Absent a particular contract or other legal obligation that specifies the length or conditions of employment, all employees are employed at will. This means that, unless an agreement specifies otherwise, employers are free to fire an employee-and employees are free to leave the position-at any time and for any reason.

Question 18

Tanya openly talks to her co-workers about her intimate liaisons with certain clients of her firm.Tanya's supervisor,John,comes to know about this.During her performance review,he mentions that her behavior can harm the reputation of the company.Tanya believes that when senior officials view the performance review,it will project her as a woman of questionable morals.In this case,John has not committed the tort of publication in false light.

Accepted Answer

The prima facie case of publication in a false light requires that there was a public disclosure of facts that place the employee in a false light before the public if the false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and the person providing the information had knowledge of or recklessly disregarded the falsity or false light of the publication. Claims of publication in a false light may be waived by an employee if the employee also publishes the information or willingly or knowingly permits it to be published. In this case, as Tanya has revealed the information about her liaisons to her co-workers herself, John has not committed the tort of publication in a false light.

Question 19

Ling was fired by MTM Mart because she stole from the cash register.A police report was filed.A prospective employer called MTM Mart for a reference and was told that Ling was fired for stealing.In this case,MTM Mart has illegally defamed Ling.

Accepted Answer

In this case, as MTM Mart is privileged to make a statement that Ling was fired for stealing, it has not illegally defamed Ling. An employer is privileged to make statements, even if defamatory, where the statement is made in good faith by one who has a legitimate business purpose in making the communication to one who has a business interest in learning the information.

Question 20

It is unlawful under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act for an employer to authorize an interception even when the equipment used is what is used in the ordinary course of business.

Accepted Answer

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 protects private and public sector employees from employer monitoring of their telephone calls and other communications without a court order. There are two exceptions to this general prohibition. First, interception is authorized where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent. Second, the business extension provision creates an exception where the equipment used is what is used in the ordinary course of business.

Quiz 14: The Employees Right to Privacy and Management of Personal Information