Performance Monitoring. Patience Oyoyo worked as a claims analyst ...

[jrubin]

Performance Monitoring. Patience Oyoyo worked as a claims analyst in the claims management department of Baylor Healthcare Network, Inc When questions arose about Oyoyo's performance on several occasions, department manager Debbie Outlaw met with Oyoyo to discuss, among other things, Oyoyo's personal use of a business phone. Outlaw reminded Oyoyo that company policy prohibited excessive personal calls and that these would result in the termination of her employment. Outlaw began to monitor Oyoyo's phone usage, noting lengthy outgoing calls on several occasions, including some long-distance calls. Eventually, Outlaw terminated Oyoyo's employment, and Oyoyo filed a suit in a federal district court against Baylor. Oyoyo asserted in part that in monitoring her phone calls, the employer had invaded her privacy. Baylor asked the court to dismiss this claim. In whose favor should the court rule, and why?

Question 2

An express ratification takes place when the principal gives a clear signal to be bound by an action that would otherwise be unauthorized.
 a. True
  b. False
  Indicate whether the statement is true or false

[shaikhs]

Answer to Question 1

Performance monitoring
The court dismissed the claim. The court pointed out that when considering an invasion of privacy claim in the employment context, it is important to consider whether the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched or matters investigated. To maintain a claim for invasion of privacy, the intrusion must be unreasonable, unjustified, or unwarranted. The court explained that the telephone records and phone calls that were monitored by Baylor were those made and received by Oyoyo on Baylor's telephone during working hours. Oyoyo was provided with a phone for the purpose of conducting business related to her employment with Baylor. . . . Baylor was legitimately concerned about the amount of time Oyoyo was on the phone for non-business reasons, as well as her use of Baylor's phone in placing personal long distance calls. Because the phone was clearly provided for business purposes, the court cannot find that Oyoyo had a legitimate privacy interest in her use of Baylor's office phone. Baylor's actions in investigating and monitoring Oyoyo's phone usage were reasonable and justifiable under the circumstances presented, and Oyoyo cannot recover for invasion of privacy based on those actions.

Answer to Question 2

TRUE

[jrubin]

Correct answers!

[shaikhs]

Great! Please up vote