Question 1

Andrew was employed by the Emerald City in the accounting department. David, the head of the department, stormed into Andrew's office demanding to search the files and all records of payments made by Emerald City to Holland Construction. David accused Andrew of getting "kick backs" from Holland Construction. Andrew attempted to leave the office during the search and David closed the door and told him to stay until all of the files had been reviewed.

Accepted Answer

Andrew has a cause of action for false imprisonment. David's act of closing the door and telling Andrew to stay until the search was complete constitutes false imprisonment, which is the unlawful restraint of an individual's freedom of movement. Andrew's Fourth Amendment rights may also have been violated due to the search being potentially unreasonable, but false imprisonment is the most appropriate cause of action in this scenario. There is no mention of defamation, so choice B is not applicable, and choice D is incorrect as the reasonableness of the search is debatable.

Question 2

It is unlawful under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) for an employer to open an employee's personal email sent on the employer's email system.

Accepted Answer

The ECPA allows employers to monitor communications on their own systems, including emails, as long as they have a legitimate business reason and employees have been notified of the monitoring policy.

Question 3

Kay Poplin was employed as a dental hygienist for Dr. Clark Smith. Dr. Smith rubbed up against her body during working hours and asked for sex. Dr. Smith called her home at all hours of the night making lewd sexual comments. He would drop by her home unannounced 3 to 4 times a week, exposing himself and asking for sex when she opened the door. Kay quit her job.

Accepted Answer

Kay has a cause of action for intrusion into seclusion. Dr. Smith's actions of calling her at all hours, dropping by her home unannounced and making lewd comments constitute unauthorized and intentional intrusion into Kay's private life, which is a tort in most jurisdictions. The fact that the conduct occurred outside of the workplace does not necessarily preclude Kay from having a valid claim. The Privacy Act is not applicable in this scenario since it pertains to the collection, maintenance, and use of personal information by federal agencies. The fact that Kay did not call the police does not affect her right to bring a civil claim.

Question 4

Greg invites his supervisor (Leslie) and two other colleagues (Wanda and Eileen) to go fishing on his boat. While fishing, they have some beers. Eileen gets so drunk that she falls overboard. Greg, Leslie and Wanda rescue Eileen with the help of the harbor police. Leslie reports the incident to the management of the company, which opens an investigation. Greg refuses to cooperate and is disciplined.

Accepted Answer

The company has a legitimate business interest in investigating the incident because it has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its employees, even outside of the workplace. Greg's refusal to cooperate is insubordination and can be subject to disciplinary action. While Greg may have privacy rights, they are not absolute in this situation as the incident involved work colleagues and company property. Furthermore, the 5th Amendment applies only to government actions, not to private companies.

Question 5

Ling was fired by Marty's Mart because she was stealing from the cash register. A police report was filed. A prospective employer called Marty's Mart for a reference and is told that Ling was fired for stealing. Marty's Mart has defamed Ling.

Accepted Answer

Defamation involves making a false statement that harms someone's reputation. If Ling was indeed fired for stealing and a police report was filed, then Marty's Mart is stating a fact, not defaming her.

Question 6

The USA Patriot Act requires the government to obtain a warrant before monitoring someone on the Internet.

Accepted Answer

The USA Patriot Act allows the government to conduct surveillance on individuals suspected of terrorist activity without obtaining a warrant, including monitoring their internet usage. However, the act also includes some provisions that require court orders or warrants in some circumstances.

Question 7

When the government infringes on a fundamental right, the government must have a compelling state interest.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the strict scrutiny standard, which requires the government to have a compelling state interest in order to justify infringing on a fundamental right.

Question 8

The Wiretap Act, generally known as "Title III," makes the interception of electronic communication legal if done by law enforcement officers conducting criminal investigations.

Accepted Answer

The Wiretap Act, officially known as the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, allows for the interception of electronic communication by law enforcement officers conducting criminal investigations under specific circumstances and with proper authorization. However, there are strict requirements and limitations in place to protect individuals' privacy rights.

Question 9

The Privacy Act of 1974, originally enacted to apply to government employees only, was extended to cover private sector employees in 1991.

Accepted Answer

The Privacy Act of 1974 still only applies to government employees, and there is no federal law that provides comprehensive privacy protections for the private sector.

Question 10

Tanya has told a number of coworkers about her intimate liaisons with clients of the firm. Her supervisor has heard some of these stories secondhand. In Tanya's next performance review, her supervisor notes these in the review as potential dangers to the company. Tanya believes that the performance review, which will be viewed by higher-ups in the company, makes her appear to be a woman of loose morals. Her employer is probably safe from liability arising out of the tort of publication in a false light.

Accepted Answer

The tort of publication in a false light requires the information to be false or misleading. If Tanya indeed shared these stories, the supervisor's notes are based on her own admissions, not falsehoods.

Question 11

Sean was employed by Office World as a manager. He was fired for sexually harassing his secretary. A prospective employer called for a reference and was told why Sean was terminated.

Accepted Answer

Office World is not liable because the statement was true and was made in good faith. Truth is a defense against defamation, and the statement was not made with malicious intent or knowledge of its falsity. Invasion of privacy and public disclosure of private facts do not apply in this situation as the information disclosed was directly related to Sean's employment and termination.

Question 12

Colleen is employed by Total World Fitness Club as a secretary. Recently, due to stress in her life, she has been binging on chocolate ice cream. As a result, Colleen has gained 14 lbs. Her employer has counseled her about the problem and advised her that she must lose the weight in order to conform to company standards of fitness. Colleen fails to lose the weight and is fired.

Accepted Answer

The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities, but being overweight, in and of itself, is not considered a disability under the ADA unless it affects a major life activity. In this situation, Colleen's weight gain has not been shown to substantially affect a major life activity, so she does not have a cause of action for discrimination under the ADA. Additionally, her right to privacy has not been violated since her employer is within its rights to enforce fitness standards and counsel her about her weight gain.

Question 13

Private sector employees can sue their employers based on state tort law as well as for violation of their constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Accepted Answer

Private sector employees cannot sue their employers for constitutional violations like unreasonable search and seizure, as the Constitution typically applies to government actions, not private entities. They may, however, pursue claims under state tort law or other applicable statutes.

Question 14

Abby works for JennyJo Boutique, which employees 11 people, including the owners, Jenny and Joe. One day while working, Jenny and Joe forcibly escort Abby to a back room. She was detained there for three hours and questioned about inventory losses. She was not allowed to leave or make a phone call. It was discovered that Abby had nothing to do with the theft, but her friend and coworker, Lauren did. Lauren and Abby were both fired. Abby has

Accepted Answer

Abby may have legal recourse against JennyJo for false imprisonment and violation of her constitutional rights, regardless of her status as an at-will employee or the size of the business. Additionally, if Abby can prove that she was fired in retaliation for speaking out about her mistreatment, she may have a claim for wrongful termination.

Question 15

The HR director for Hope Industries forbids the office staff from turning the computers off at the end of the day because he believes that this will save electricity. He has instructed them to turn the monitor off only. Cassandra, a member of the housekeeping staff, inadvertently discovered that the computers were on and now routinely sits at the computers during her break, reading the computerized personnel files of her co-workers. During one of these breaks, she discovers that her supervisor, Truman, has HIV. Cassandra tells all of her co-workers.

Accepted Answer

Truman has a cause of action against his employer for invasion of privacy. The HR director's policy of leaving the computers on may have facilitated Cassandra's access to the personnel files, which contained private medical information about Truman. Although Cassandra was not authorized to access the files, the employer may be liable if it failed to take adequate steps to protect its employees' privacy. The fact that the employer did not intentionally disclose the information is not relevant to Truman's claim for invasion of privacy. The Privacy Act, which applies only to government agencies, is also not relevant to this case.

Question 16

Pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, the government can request confidential information from employers about their employees. The employer can

Accepted Answer

The correct choice is C because the USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to request confidential information from employers about their employees, but the employer can refuse and ask to receive a subpoena, a search warrant or a FISA order before releasing employee confidential information. This protects both the employer and the employee's rights to privacy and due process. Refusing based solely on the Act giving employers the right to maintain employee privacy or asserting the employee's constitutional rights may not hold up legally. Refusing after receiving a FISA order and demanding a hearing before a federal judge may also be an option, but it is not necessary if the employer has already received a legal order such as a subpoena or a search warrant.

Question 17

As noted in Griswold v. Connecticut, a citizen's right to privacy is explicitly guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy; however, the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut recognized it as implied through various amendments.

Question 18

Paul is a nurse at a private hospital. He runs a pornographic website from home. The hospital fires Paul when it discovers Paul's moonlighting activities. The hospital was concerned about Paul's activities reflecting poorly on the hospital. Paul has no recourse against his employer.

Accepted Answer

Private employers have the right to terminate an employee for any reason that is not illegal, and running a pornographic website from home can be seen as conduct that reflects poorly on the employer. Therefore, Paul does not have any legal recourse against his employer for being fired.

Question 19

Emails sent by an employee on company time with content that constitutes sexual harassment is discoverable by the opposing party against the employer in litigation.

Accepted Answer

Emails sent by an employee on company time are considered to be within the scope of their employment and are subject to discovery in litigation. If the content of these emails constitutes sexual harassment, it can be used as evidence against the employer in the lawsuit.

Question 20

Employers may use employees' medical records, without consent, in making employment decisions under HIPAA.

Accepted Answer

HIPAA prohibits employers from using employees' medical records in making employment decisions without obtaining written consent from the employee. Employers can only access and use medical information under specific circumstances, such as when it is necessary to comply with OSHA requirements or to provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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