Fire over myspace posting.

[Proteas]

==============

Workers Sue Over MySpace Firings

(May 4) - By now, many employees know that their every keystroke at work can be monitored legally by their employers. But a case out of Hackensack, N.J., hinges on what two employees said about their jobs outside of work. Specifically, the two were fired in 2006 over allegedly making derogatory comments about one of their managers in a discussion group on MySpace.

One of the employees, Doreen Marino, said she and her co-workers used the password-protected discussion group to vent about their jobs at Houston's restaurant.

"Better vent there, in my opinion, [and] take it somewhere where no one's going to hear you," Marino said.

But Marino said one of her managers got a hold of the password to see what was written on the site and didn't like what he saw. Marino and a co-worker were fired shortly thereafter.

Now, Marino and the co-worker are suing for invasion of privacy. But in a statement to CNN, a lawyer representing the restaurant said, "This is not a case about 'cyber-snooping,' the First Amendment, or privacy. It's about two staff members who were let go for unprofessional conduct, including disparaging comments about our guests, and sharing a product knowledge test before it was administered."

Source: AOL News

============

Unprofessional conduct my HAIRY WHITE ASS, they were off the clock participating in a private discussion. I know that's not the most well thought out or well written topic starting post I've ever written, but dammit, as someone who works in the customer service industry for a living, there's always been an understood line between what goes on in your work life and what goes on in your private life. Unless they can show that Myspace hosted this particular website for the business in question, then it cannot be argued that this was a work related discussion, and as such simply viewing that material without proper invitation IS a violation of privacy.

That lawyer can take his license and stick it for all I care.

Thoughts welcome.

[Proph]

Good. The managers are getting what they deserve. That's an invasion of someones civil liberties. I'd sue too if I were them. .

[Elfer]

Actually they were off the clock having a public discussion. Not only do employment contracts generally prohibit bad-mouthing your company/supervisors even off the clock under penalty of termination, the restaurant claims to have also found that they were releasing confidential information.

[Tancrisism]

At 5/4/09 10:33 PM, Elfer wrote: Actually they were off the clock having a public discussion. Not only do employment contracts generally prohibit bad-mouthing your company/supervisors even off the clock under penalty of termination, the restaurant claims to have also found that they were releasing confidential information.

If this is the case, the firing seems quite reasonable, I think.

[Proph]

At 5/4/09 10:43 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 5/4/09 10:33 PM, Elfer wrote: Actually they were off the clock having a public discussion. Not only do employment contracts generally prohibit bad-mouthing your company/supervisors even off the clock under penalty of termination, the restaurant claims to have also found that they were releasing confidential information.

If this is the case, the firing seems quite reasonable, I think.

True. But the lawsuit is also quite reasonable. They were in a password protected room/chat/messageboard, and the manager illegally obtained the passwords (at least that's what it implied).

[BrianEtrius]

At 5/4/09 10:43 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 5/4/09 10:33 PM, Elfer wrote: Actually they were off the clock having a public discussion. Not only do employment contracts generally prohibit bad-mouthing your company/supervisors even off the clock under penalty of termination, the restaurant claims to have also found that they were releasing confidential information.

If this is the case, the firing seems quite reasonable, I think.

It depends on the type of contract and so forth. From the information here, it seems illogical, but as with many other issues the more information the easier it is to draw a safer conclusion.

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/4/09 11:24 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: It depends on the type of contract and so forth. From the information here, it seems illogical, but as with many other issues the more information the easier it is to draw a safer conclusion.

What this comes down to based on my reading is whether or not the management can prove they leaked confidential and proprietary information. Because while I know most employers don't want the place bad mouthed by the employees, that in and of itself probably wouldn't have caused termination, probably just a warning. Now if they leaked something PROPRIETARY...well that's a horse of a different color and they have no right to be doing that.

[slowerthenb4]

This is a cool little story.

I can see the gap in the law that technology has created. I would say that given the group was a private party, the information was "confidential." The firings were without proper justification given it was (solely?) based on information "stolen" from an (illegal?) "trespassing" on a private myspace forum.

It seems i would side with the old waitress lady on this one. She does have the expectation of privacy given the nature of this invite only forum.

[slowerthenb4]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

lib·er·ty (l%u012Db'%u0259r-t%u0113)
1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.

# Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
# A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/5/09 12:35 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

No, this doesn't work. If you sign an agreement that says you don't get to disparage the company, or disclose it's private information to the public, you cannot use the first amendment to defend violating said agreement.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This they might have a case on, since even if they did disclose proprietary information, the question that would then be before the court is when and how did the company become aware of that and was it BEFORE they got hold of those passwords and looked into these postings? If not, then I think the 4th Amendment may be in play here and that may be the end of it, if the court rules the other way, it could set a quite scary precedent.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

lib·er·ty (l%u012Db'%u0259r-t%u0113)
1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.

# Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
# A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Ok, now I get where you're going, at first I was like "the hell?" but yeah, the 4th and the 6th may have some bearing here, but the first absolutely does not because the contract they signed as a term of employment which they did VOLUNTARILY enter into takes the 1st Amendment totally out of the equation.

[slowerthenb4]

At 5/5/09 01:11 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/5/09 12:35 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

No, this doesn't work. If you sign an agreement that says you don't get to disparage the company, or disclose it's private information to the public, you cannot use the first amendment to defend violating said agreement.

that would be true IF said agreement did not itself violate the constitution. Those disclosure agreements are wielded through litigation only in the context of malice or gross negligence resulting in measurable "loss." This was a grasp at incriminating the plaintiff on the grounds that she signed a document and could be found to have violated it. BUT if violating that very agreement was an exercise of her unalienable rights as an american, the agreement would be irrelevant.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This they might have a case on, since even if they did disclose proprietary information, the question that would then be before the court is when and how did the company become aware of that and was it BEFORE they got hold of those passwords and looked into these postings? If not, then I think the 4th Amendment may be in play here and that may be the end of it, if the court rules the other way, it could set a quite scary precedent.

i agree that a timeline and intent or context of the "proprietary information" is required... and given the nature of the lawsuit i cannot see that the company would be given the right to supersede the intended nature of a password protected forum. That should, in the eyes of the law, equate to a hacker employer stealing information on (the) employees.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

lib·er·ty (l%u012Db'%u0259r-t%u0113)
1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.

# Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
# A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Ok, now I get where you're going, at first I was like "the hell?" but yeah, the 4th and the 6th may have some bearing here, but the first absolutely does not because the contract they signed as a term of employment which they did VOLUNTARILY enter into takes the 1st Amendment totally out of the equation.

voluntary or not, contracts that infringe on the scope of personal rights are never held as binding. i think in their intent of the disclosure agreement, the writers never intended the contract to be held in such a loosely interpreted light, as a court will inevitably examine. the employee had not intended to benefit from this disclosure, simply contextualized as a forum for conversation and "airing of grievances" pertaining to a small, private, password protected, group of employees.

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/5/09 01:59 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: that would be true IF said agreement did not itself violate the constitution. Those disclosure agreements are wielded through litigation only in the context of malice or gross negligence resulting in measurable "loss." This was a grasp at incriminating the plaintiff on the grounds that she signed a document and could be found to have violated it. BUT if violating that very agreement was an exercise of her unalienable rights as an american, the agreement would be irrelevant.

Hmmm, I see it, but to me the big thing for them to try and hang their hat on here is to say they leaked proprietary info. That's the only thing they could really do to even come close to trying to justify what they did.

i agree that a timeline and intent or context of the "proprietary information" is required... and given the nature of the lawsuit i cannot see that the company would be given the right to supersede the intended nature of a password protected forum. That should, in the eyes of the law, equate to a hacker employer stealing information on (the) employees.

I would like to believe so as well, but timelines are going to be crucial here, as well as proving that such information was indeed leaked. Because as much as rights to privacy should absolutely be protected, the company also should have it's rights to have it's information kept confidential as well here. This really is going to be a difficult and potentially long case for both parties.

voluntary or not, contracts that infringe on the scope of personal rights are never held as binding. i think in their intent of the disclosure agreement, the writers never intended the contract to be held in such a loosely interpreted light, as a court will inevitably examine. the employee had not intended to benefit from this disclosure, simply contextualized as a forum for conversation and "airing of grievances" pertaining to a small, private, password protected, group of employees.

If that's all that happened, then yeah, I'd say the company is well and truly screwed here, and well they should be. It all comes back I guess to how much was actually getting out to the public I guess.

[Proteas]

At 5/4/09 10:33 PM, Elfer wrote: Actually they were off the clock having a public discussion.

A public discussion... that was private and needed a password to access. If you say so.

the restaurant claims to have also found that they were releasing confidential information.

To whom? Each other?

[morefngdbs]

You know, whether it was or wasn't private, if this one said something or that one said something else... you know, I don't give a shit.
That's the main reason I went to face book for a couple weeks & never really used it or stayed.
Your going to say stuff that will hurt or piss off someone somewhere.
That's why I like Newgrounds.
You are here with a user name, it protects you from the hassel of expressing your thoughts.
I realise that IP numbers etc. can be tracked & your identity is available to the Admins.
THat's fine because this isn't a site where promoting terror acts or crime of any real significance takes place.
Bosses ,people you may know etc. can see what you or I post, but cannot be sure who you or I actually are.
These other sites that promote a persons actual identity, leave you wide open to discrimination by the assholes of society.
I wonder which "suck up" who had seen the posts, & gave the pass word to the boss who then accessed the site & fired the people involved. If that person has been identified ?
Possibly promoted for their asslicking.

mmmmmmm , asslicking just the job for those who don't mind a mouth full of shit !

[Jon-86]

If I had any problems in work I would just tell them, what ever happened to the days when workers went on strikes to improve their working condition? Instead of just suffering it and then moaning about it online?

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/5/09 01:55 PM, Jon-86 wrote: If I had any problems in work I would just tell them, what ever happened to the days when workers went on strikes to improve their working condition? Instead of just suffering it and then moaning about it online?

To strike, you must have, or be in a union. Many companies are violently anti-union (Wal-Mart for a prime example), and therefore the employees are on their own when it comes to ability to improve conditions. Which of course brings up the other point about it's all about how your managers and company operate. I have managers who seem not to give a rats ass when I have a problem at my job and have only found one so far that has ever even made a real attempt at redressing my grievances. The culture is they don't care cause they don't have to, and the company has policies to reinforce the fundamental problems we're all dealing with. Sometimes you have very few options to remedy the problem and quitting is an even worse option. So what's wrong with frustrated people venting to each other?

Are you in the work force at all man? Because this post makes you sound like you either aren't, or you must have a really great job that you never have any problems at to not understand simple concepts of how jobs can be.

[kidray76]

Honestly, I really don't feel that bad for the employees.

In Georgia, laws states companies can monitor all computer and internet activity by employees.
Those two really should of picked there places to post. Seriously, they couldn't just go home and post on a personal computer, or just picked up their cell phones and walked 7 steps outside the door? Or hell, on a lunch break they couldn't just go to a table and talk?

I'm all for civil liberties, but at the same time, I do not give sympathy to stupidity. I understand of people hate their jobs, but if you w ant to keep your jobs, the minimum you can do is not complain on work property or time.

I'm not saying privacy hasn't been evaded here, I'm saying as adults in the business world, people have to be careful about what they say, how they say it, when they say it, and where they say it and also to whom. Kinda a harsh lesson. Even if they get their jobs back, only thing they've done is just make it worse. Even though legally they the mangers/employers can't retialiate, doesn't mean they can't make the work harder that they signed on to do or for them to find loop holes in the contract which can make them work harder, or longer.

[Jon-86]

At 5/5/09 03:53 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Are you in the work force at all man? Because this post makes you sound like you either aren't, or you must have a really great job that you never have any problems at to not understand simple concepts of how jobs can be.

Yeah I am, and my current job is a good one I have to admit. But I stand up for my principles and wont be demeaned. For example, my first job was as a mechanic. They asked me to make the tea. I wasnt their to make the tea, but I did make it once. The boss poured it down the sink and said make it again. So a simply told him no, I'm not here to make tea.

And was promptly fired at x-mas.

Still their loss, I am now "the computer guy" for a company. The place has a relaxed atmosphere etc, so its all cool. But if I ever had a conflict of interest, I would stick by my believes. And the Wal-mart example you describe is something I don't think is right. The workers should have control of their work environment, folks have fought for the rights we enjoy now. Why simply give them up?

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/5/09 05:09 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Still their loss, I am now "the computer guy" for a company. The place has a relaxed atmosphere etc, so its all cool. But if I ever had a conflict of interest, I would stick by my believes. And the Wal-mart example you describe is something I don't think is right. The workers should have control of their work environment, folks have fought for the rights we enjoy now. Why simply give them up?

Because for some people, that's the best job they can get. From the two job history you just gave me, you're obviously an individual who has skills in at least two trades, most wal-mart employees or employees in similar places don't, that's part of why they're in that position to begin with. We can go round and round about what they can and can't do to improve their situation, but facts are facts, I agree some people should be more open to standing up for themselves like I am. But when the system is conditioned to where that either doesn't work or is discouraged, you're living paycheck to paycheck and you just can't afford not to be working, it's very easy for people to just shut up and vent their frustrations elsewhere.

[Jon-86]

Yeah you have a fair point about depending on your pay-cheque and how that's used to exploit people. Ending that requires a complete political change, shifting to communism or socialism where the wage system that traps and exploits people doesn't exist. But thats no really gonna happen.

Personally I have lost 3 jobs for similar reasons to the first. But unions are formed by workers. If you have a whole store like wall-mart and the problem effect everyone. Those people should get together. It would be unacceptable to fire everyone as too much money would be lost. If thoes workers then took to the street and let everyone know about it, the company looses even more. They also need to have a reason for firing you unless you are in breach of your contract as already pointed out.

Everyone should make a stand and fight them to the end, if it really comes to that. But that's probably going more into my personal believe instead of whether or not companies have a right to spy on you. Then act on information gained.

[Elfer]

At 5/5/09 09:33 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/4/09 10:33 PM, Elfer wrote: Actually they were off the clock having a public discussion.

A public discussion... that was private and needed a password to access. If you say so.

The password does complicate the issue. There's a decent argument that it's not a breach of contract, but it certainly wasn't a good idea to hold a recorded written discussion over the internet in which they badmouthed their employer.

I'm certain that I can be fired if I say bad things about my company on a blog. I'm uncertain about whether or not this would be true if the blog were password-protected. However, I'd err on the side of caution and not do it at all until I was no longer working there.

To whom? Each other?

Depends, if any non-employees saw the test, or a current employee saw the test before they had taken it, it was a confidentiality breach.