SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Jeremy and jeannette case

•Download as PPTX, PDF•
•
Michael Perez
Michael Perez

Jeremy works for a government employer and uses his personal computer at work. While the employer has a policy prohibiting personal internet usage, Jeremy has been visiting pornographic websites. This could expose the employer to liability for sexual harassment if a colleague complains. As a government employee, Jeremy has some expectation of privacy for personal belongings at work, but the employer also has rights to monitor electronic communications and search without a warrant if policies are violated or laws broken. The employer should consider blocking pornographic sites and prohibiting personal computer use at work to prevent these issues.

1 of 7
JEREMY AND JEANNETTE CASE By: Michael Perez Instructor: Gina Riestra MGT 3610 Human Resource Management Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico
Does Jeremy have a right to privacy in his personal computer at work? Jeremy have the right to protect his privacy of his personal computer because the machine belong to him.
Does it matter that the employer has policy prohibiting personal Internet surfing? Employer has the right to of prohibiting personal internet surfing because employer lost money, employee lost productivity Possibility that a user will use enterprise property to download viruses, transmit sensitive company information, or use enterprise property to break the law.
Does the fact that Jeremy works for a government employer make a difference in terms of the law to be applied to the analysis? If so, what difference does it make?  He is at work he and the policy say “electronic communications are monitored need”.  In government workplace are something warrantless for search and monitory privacy, when you violating the policy and break the law not matter if is your personal computer  As a general rule, a government employee would continue to have an expectation of privacy in his or her personal belongings that have been brought into the workplace environment.
Jeremy and jeannette case
If Jeremy is indeed going to pornographic sites and a colleague objects, does Jeremy’s behavior expose the employer to liability?  If Jeremy is indeed going to porno site, employer can take a disciplinary action against for his behavior and sexual harassment complaint.  The company need blocked pornographic site for this kind of issue don’t happen in the future.  Make the prohibited of the use of personal computer at work.
Bibliography  Maidment, F. (2011). Annual Editions: Human Resources 10/11 (19th Edition ed.). (F. Maidment, Ed.) McGraw-Hill Higher Education.  Lemons, B. R. (n.d.). Warrantless Workplace Searches of Government Employees. Retrieved 8 26, 2011, from Warrantless Workplace Searches of Government Employees: www.khodges.com/iacp/GovernmentEmployeeSearches.doc

More Related Content

Jeremy and jeannette case

  • 1. JEREMY AND JEANNETTE CASE By: Michael Perez Instructor: Gina Riestra MGT 3610 Human Resource Management Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico
  • 2. Does Jeremy have a right to privacy in his personal computer at work? Jeremy have the right to protect his privacy of his personal computer because the machine belong to him.
  • 3. Does it matter that the employer has policy prohibiting personal Internet surfing? Employer has the right to of prohibiting personal internet surfing because employer lost money, employee lost productivity Possibility that a user will use enterprise property to download viruses, transmit sensitive company information, or use enterprise property to break the law.
  • 4. Does the fact that Jeremy works for a government employer make a difference in terms of the law to be applied to the analysis? If so, what difference does it make?  He is at work he and the policy say “electronic communications are monitored need”.  In government workplace are something warrantless for search and monitory privacy, when you violating the policy and break the law not matter if is your personal computer  As a general rule, a government employee would continue to have an expectation of privacy in his or her personal belongings that have been brought into the workplace environment.
  • 6. If Jeremy is indeed going to pornographic sites and a colleague objects, does Jeremy’s behavior expose the employer to liability?  If Jeremy is indeed going to porno site, employer can take a disciplinary action against for his behavior and sexual harassment complaint.  The company need blocked pornographic site for this kind of issue don’t happen in the future.  Make the prohibited of the use of personal computer at work.
  • 7. Bibliography  Maidment, F. (2011). Annual Editions: Human Resources 10/11 (19th Edition ed.). (F. Maidment, Ed.) McGraw-Hill Higher Education.  Lemons, B. R. (n.d.). Warrantless Workplace Searches of Government Employees. Retrieved 8 26, 2011, from Warrantless Workplace Searches of Government Employees: www.khodges.com/iacp/GovernmentEmployeeSearches.doc