About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2021 - April 2022)

handle is hein.ali/aliemploy0041 and id is 1 raw text is: EMPLOYMENT LAW CHAPTER 7. EMPLOYEE PRIVACY AND AUTONOMY PART 1. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE PRIVACY § 7.06. Wrongful Employer Intrusions Ohio, 2020. Com. (h) quot. in sup. Former and current employees sued employer and administrator of workplace drug-testing programs, alleging that defendants violated plaintiffs' privacy when they required employees, on threat of termination, to submit to a urinalysis test while being directly observed by a same-sex monitor. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court of appeals reversed. This court reversed, holding that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for invasion of privacy, because they provided urine samples or acted in good faith to produce samples after being informed of the nature of the test. Citing Restatement of Employment Law § 7.06 and Restatement Second of Torts § 892A(1), the court explained that consent was an absolute defense to an invasion-of-privacy claim, and, in this case, plaintiffs' consented to the purported invasion of privacy by providing or attempting to provide samples. Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C., 165 N.E.3d 245, 254. CHAPTER 8. EMPLOYEE OBLIGATIONS AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS § 8.01. Employee Duty of Loyalty to the Employer C.A.7, 2021. Cit. in ftn. Start-up company and its founder filed a claim for legal malpractice against company's former attorney after attorney obtained an arbitration award against them for years of unpaid wages, alleging that they would not have been liable for the award if he had not advised them to enter into an illegal agreement with him to defer his compensation. The district court granted attorney's motion to dismiss. This court affirmed the district court's determination that company and founder failed to show proximate cause by plausibly pleading that they would have taken a different course of action that would have avoided their liability to attorney if attorney had not recommended the agreement. In making its decision, the court cited Restatement of Employment Law § 8.01 in noting that it was rare but not completely unprecedented for an employer to sue its own employee for negligent acts taken within the scope of his or her employment. UFT Commercial Finance, LLC v. Fisher, 991 F.3d 854, 856. COPYRIGHT ©2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved AILJ Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most