Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Against Illinois Eavesdropping Law Claim

Illinois is somewhat unique among the states when it comes to its eavesdropping statute. Illinois has a statute which prohibits recording a phone conversation unless all the parties to the conversation consent. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1). In the same act, persons are barred from later using or distributing any data procured through a recording that lacks the required unanimous consent. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(3). There are exceptions, and a significant one covers a situation where one of the parties to the conversation has fear of a crime occurring. 720 ILCS 5/14-3(i). The statutory exception imposes specific requirements, including that one of the parties to the conversation makes or requests the making of the recording, that said person has a reasonable suspicion that another party to the conversation has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime against that person or a member of that person's immediate household, and that the recording of the conversation may produce evidence of that criminal offense. Id. More ›

Seventh Circuit Explains the Burden of Proof Applied to Retaliation Claims

In Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, the plaintiff police officer sued the Mayor of Danville, Illinois, along with the Director of Public Safety and two Deputy Directors. The officer pursued his First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, and alleged that the defendants responded unlawfully by disciplining him and subjecting him to termination charges because of his public criticisms of various departmental officials at police officer union meetings. The case narrative contains many vivid facts, including the claims by a parolee informant of the officer that he had an explosive, which proved to be a piece of firework, and the officer transporting the same informant across state lines. More ›

Ninth Circuit: Employees do not Violate the CFFA when Violating Computer use Restrictions

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion concerning employee violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. More ›

U.S. Supreme Court and State Legislatures Address Privacy Issues in the Workplace

A loaded question, admittedly, but the answer for the Supreme Court, once again, is no.

In Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, No. 10-1024 (March 28, 2012), the Supreme Court had to decide whether individuals may recover actual damages under the Privacy Act for sustaining mental or emotional distress. 5 U.S.C. §552a(g)(4)(A). Writing for the majority in a 5-3 decision, (which did not involve Justice Kagan), Judge Alito dispatched with all suspense by first declaring the holding that the Act does not provide for such remedies. The Privacy Act bears unique qualities. It covers the activities of Executive Branch agencies who hold confidential records. The Act permits an individual to file a civil suit against an agency over "intentional or willful" violations of the Act. 5 U.S.C. §552a(g)(1)(D) & 5 U.S.C. §552a(g)(4)(A). An individual can recover "actual damages" upon proving that an agency has violated the requirements of the Act "in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual". Id. More ›

Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Employer in Reverse-Race Discrimination Case

In Good v. University of Chicago Medical Center, No. 1102679 (7th Cir. 3/12/2012), Plaintiff Good appealed the summary judgment entered by a district court that tossed her claim of reverse-race discrimination. Plaintiff previously worked as a lead technologist in the medical center's radiology department. While admitting there were issues with her job performance, she asserted that her white race was the reason she was terminated rather than demoted as occurred with employees of other races. Because defendants had obtained summary judgment, the Seventh Circuit construed all facts and drew all inferences in favor of Plaintiff. The medical center used a four step corrective and progressive action policy, under which an employee who failed a performance improvement plan, ["PIP"], could be terminated. The policy manual, however, also stated that it was the policy of the employer "to demote [an] individual" who "cannot perform...her assigned job responsibilities" as a result of "her skills [] not [being] matched to the requirements of the job" or because the employee "lack[s]...motivation to perform up to standards." But unlike other employees, managers who worked in the radiology department were held to a higher standard based on their additional responsibilities. Though managerial employees could be terminated at any time, some managers were demoted rather than subjected to the harsher regime of corrective treatments which included PIPs, new probationary periods, or discharge. More ›