preview

Case Study: Monmouth-Ocean Hospital

Decent Essays

For a complaint to qualify under the stipulations of the SCA, it had to be an electronic form of communication, the information had to be transmitted through an electronic transfer service, the information was stored electronically, and the information is not public. Upon review by the court, it was originally deemed that all four qualifications had been met. However, it was also deemed that because the co-worker of Ehling had provided the information to the hospital and they were not actively seeking the material, the court ruled in favor of Monmouth-Ocean Hospital. (Adam, 2013) This case set a precedent for future cases, suggesting that if users of a social media platform take the necessary precautions to protect their information, privacy …show more content…

A group of employees felt that they were overworked and underpaid, and took their rant to Facebook to engage in a discussion. The employees posted the following comments about their working conditions: “What the f… Try doing my job. I have 5 programs,” “Tell her to come do [my] f***ing job n c if I don’t do enough, this is just dum,” and “I think we should give our paychecks to our clients so they can ‘pay’ the rent…(insert sarcasm here now).” (Hill, 2011) As with the Ehling vs. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital case, a fellow employee was a friend to the individuals having the Facebook conversation, and shared the information with a supervisor. The supervisor fired all of the employees involved in the conversation, indicating that they were all in violation of the organization’s social media policy. “The judge decided that the heated Facebook conversation did not constitute harassment and that the non-profit erred in de-friending the workers. “Employees have a protected right to discuss matters affecting their employment amongst themselves,” wrote Judge Amchan in his decision, which orders the non-profit to rehire all five workers and make them “whole for any loss of earnings” suffered.” (Hill, 2011) Due to the fact that employees were discussing items that affect their work or working conditions, and that there were multiple people involved, this was a concerted activity, and qualified …show more content…

Many issues have surfaced, including what legal access an employer has to information on a personally owned device. In a recent study, 60% of employers indicated that they currently allow employees to use their personal phones, tablets, or laptops to access company information, or conduct business from the device. In addition, 14% of the respondents indicated that they don’t currently allow such use, but plan to implement a plan to do so within the next year. This new trend, referred to as “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) blurs the distinction of what is acceptable monitoring by an employer. Upon review of the website PrivacyRights.org, an employer can do the following on an employee owned device: “Locking, disabling and data wiping, access to the device, access to phone records or contacts, access to social media or other account username and passwords, monitor GPS and location information, view web browsing history, view pictures, video, or other media, view personal emails, view chat and messaging histories, and limit the use of cloud services.” (Clearinghouse, 2014) To protect both the employee and the employer, it is vital that an employer develop a BYOD policy, which clearly outlines the ramifications of what the employer does and does not have access to. In doing so, if a dispute were to arise

Get Access