Patty Plaintiffs Really Bad Week Assignment_Solution Attachments area

Document Content and Description Below

Running Head: PATTY PLAINTIFF’S REALLY BAD WEEK 1 Patty Plaintiff’s Really Bad Week Name Professor Course Date PATTY PLAINTIFF’S REALLY BAD WEEK 2 Patty Plaintiff’s Really ... Bad Week Time to time, people could be faced with unfortunate situations and they might find it challenging to determine if these happenings could have any legal claims. This is the same dilemma that Patty Plaintiffs is facing after having a really unlucky week. Patty’s problems start when she is wrongly accused of shoplifting in her favorite store where she had gone to get a laptop. As she lives the store, she is accidentally hit by a golf ball and in addition to missing her appointment, she had to take five days to recover from her head injuries. Patty’s problems do not end there, but on returning to work, she is accused of violation of the company’s policies because she had used the company’s email to send her mother an email. This violation leads to Patty getting reprimanded and she ends up using social media in her home computer posting disparaging comments about her boss. This would in the next day cost Patty her job. This paper analyzes the various potential legal claims that Patty could make against each of the parties leading to her unfortunate events if any. Possible Tort Claims against Cash Mart Tort is described to be wrongful infringement of rights that could then lead to legal claims [Ken142]. In the provided scenario, Patty can use several types of intentional tort claims against the store. One of these torts is false imprisonment or false arrest. Patty is forcefully held in a room within the store waiting for over one hour, but is finally let free without any proof that she had shoplifted. Another tort is the defamation that describes intentional making of false statements about an individual, which could injure their reputation. Wrongfully accusing Patty without any evidence injured her reputation. For instance, what would have happened if Patty’s neighbor, friend, or colleague were there when she was being accused of shoplifting? This could PATTY PLAINTIFF’S REALLY BAD WEEK 3 lead to emotional distress and the other tort that applies here is intentional infliction of emotional distress caused upon Patty by the guard’s conduct. Further, another tort that applies here is the duty of care tort which describes a legal obligation requiring individuals to adhere to standards of reasonable care when engaging in actions that could cause harm to others [Ken142]. Therefore, based on this analysis, Cash Mart has a case to answer for wrongly accusing Patty a frequent customer at the store for shoplifting without reasonable cause. Based on the facts in the scenario and associated torts as analyzed above, if she files legal claims against Cash Mart, Patty has higher probability of being compensated. Assessment of Gerry’s Negligence when He Injured Patty with the Golf Ball Negligence legal claims occur when once person suffers harm or loss due to negligence of another person. In such a case, the victim has a right to sue for compensation due to the damages or harm caused (National Paralegal College, 2018). Going by the facts presented in the scenario, it is evident that Gerry was negligent which resulted to causing physical injuries on Patty with the golf ball. Gerry understands the size of his backyard and must have obviously known that by breaking out, the golf ball would go beyond his backyard. Nevertheless, he seemed not to be concerned of what would happen if the ball went beyond his backyard. This results to causing physical harm on the Plaintiff who is not able to report to work for several days due to the injuries caused. Therefore, the major element of negligence that is to be applied here is harm that requires a plaintiff to sue for negligence and suffering harm caused by the defendant (National Paralegal College, 2018). Although Gerry did not know the golf ball would hit someone, he ought to have been cautious and the laws of negligence enable plaintiffs to sue defendants due to harm caused be it through reckless behavior or accidental. PATTY PLAINTIFF’S REALLY BAD WEEK 4 Patty’s Right to Privacy when using Acme Corporation’s E-mail System With increasing using of computers and modern technologies in businesses today to facilitate communication such as e-mails, right to privacy of employees while at the workplace is becoming quite a concern. Based on the scenario, Acme Corporation is very clear on its communication policy and prohibits its employees from using its email for personal communication. Existence of this communication policy at the company is a clear indication that Patty has no right to privacy while using Acme’s e-mail system for communication. However, despite being aware of this, Patty goes ahead to use the same e-mail system to send an email message to her mother, deliberately violating a key policy in her workplace. As a result, she is reprimanded and is not happy about it. The company took the right disciplinary actions against Patty for violation of its email communication policy and even if she decided to sue the company, she would lose the case on claims of misconduct or violation of the e-mail communication policy. Patty getting Legally Fired because of Negative Comments about the Company and her Boss in Social Media Increasing use of technologies and social media channels for communication in the workplace led to the development and enactment of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). This legislation puts limitations on authority and mandate of employers to monitoring electronic communication by their employees specifically for ordinary course of doing business in the workplace, but it exempts authority of employers to monitoring personal communications by their employees [Ken142]. However, it is the responsibility of every organization to protect its reputation and that of its employees as well. Therefore, although, there is limit on employers’ PATTY PLAINTIFF’S REALLY BAD WEEK 5 ability to monitor personal communication by their employees, I think that employers have a right to taking action against inappropriate use of social media by their employees especially where the company’s reputation is at risk. Therefore, before deciding to post disparaging comments on social media, Patty ought to understand that there were associated consequences for her actions. These actions would cause harm to the company and the boss and in my view, firing her was the best course of legal action to take. Conclusion As depicted in the analyzed scenario, occurrence of unfortunate events might lead to legal claims and if the victim decides to sue, they could get compensated for the harm caused. This is the same situation, Patty who has been having a bad week is facing unfortunate events that started with her being accused of shoplifting and end up with her losing her job. Several torts could form foundation for Patty’s legal claims after being wrongly accused of shoplifting including defamation, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and duty of care. Patty also has legal claims against Gerry’s negligence who recklessly hits a golf ball that goes out of his backyard hitting her causing her physical injuries that last for five days. However, in the last two unfortunate events where she is reprimanded for personal use of the company’s e- mail system and using social media to post disparaging comments, Patty has no legal claims against the company or her boss, because she is in violation of the e-mail system policy and is harming reputation of the company and her boss respectively. Even though employees’ have a right to privacy with emerging technologies in the workplace, they [Show More]

Last updated: 3 years ago

Preview 1 out of 6 pages