Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Outrageous Conduct and Invasion of Privacy
In the workplace, the term outrageous conduct typically refers to any behavior that is beyond the pale of what is considered acceptable. This can include everything from sexual harassment and discrimination to threats and physical violence. Invasion of privacy, on the other hand, generally refers to any unauthorized intrusion into another person's private life. This can include anything from eavesdropping and snooping to using hidden cameras or taking photos without consent. While both types of misconduct can have a serious impact on the victim, invasion of privacy is often considered to be more egregious since it infringing on an individual's right to privacy. With respect to the case, Judge Dailey notes in Pearson v. Kancilla (2003), the elements of outrageous conduct are: (1) the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) recklessly or with the intent of causing the plaintiff severe emotional distress, and (3) causing the plaintiff severe emotional distress (p. 1). Invasion of privacy, according to Dailey in the same case and in accordance with Colorado state law, is defined as (1) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another ("seclusion"); (2) unreasonable publicity given to another's private life ("disclosure"); and (3) appropriation of another's name or likeness ("appropriation") (p. 4).
The charges of the case are that Kancilla (defendant) invaded the privacy of and engaged in outrageous conduct against plaintiffs Pearson and Fahy. Judgment favored the plaintiffs and Kancilla was ordered to make financial restitution. Kancilla sought an appeal, arguing that there was no evidence of outrageous conduct or invasion of privacy. Judge Dailey denied the appeal arguing that evidence for both existed, and in the judgment this is stated clearly, point by point, with reference to other cases to support the judgment...…and invasion of privacy. Dailey explained clearly and reasonably why Kancilla did do the things that he was accused of doing and therefore had no grounds for appeal based on what he argued in the appeal.
Thus, Dailey confirmed that judgment be awarded to the plaintiffs, and that Kancilla should be required to be pay the fines. This was not the end of the case, however, as Kancilla would appeal again, and he would try to use bankruptcy law to protect his assets. The case would ultimately go to the Colorado State Supreme Court in 2008. Overall, this case shows that when a professional starts an affair with a patient or an employee it in and of itself can be considered outrageous conduct, and that by pushing the person into continuing the affair it can constitute an invasion of privacyespecially if one tries to make it happen at the persons house…
References
Case Law. (2006). Pearson v. Kancilla. Retrieved from
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-court-of-appeals/1311944.html
Colorado Supreme Court. (2008). Kancilla v. Pearson. Retrieved from
https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2008/07sc4-1.html
Workplace Privacy Issue: For a long period of time, the right to privacy, including workplace privacy has been a major controversial issue. In the recent past, workplace privacy issues have become major focal point of debates regarding the rights of employers and employees because of the impact of technological advancements, legislative scrutiny, and rising costs of healthcare. Generally, workplace privacy issues are divided into two major categories i.e. on-the-job and off-the-job
Deontologically, people might take a stand for personal physical privacy as an innate moral good; yet, precisely what each deontologist might define privacy to be may vary. Consequently, some deontologists might think that workplace surveillance and drug tests are morally acceptable, while genetic tests are not. Others might organize their beliefs differently -- all measures may be seen as morally unacceptable, for instance. Essentially, attesting to be either a
This even happened in Athens in 1993 when its municipal government imposed conditions of a cholesterol check. They sought to accept only those employees having acceptable level of cholesterol. Employers later had to abandon this policy due to public hue and cry but it shows how far employers can go in imposing medical conditions on employees. Drug testing is a common practice in a number of organizations as its harmful
Privacy of an Individual in the Workplace Argument Length: 2,000 words Task Construct argument notion individual's privacy important consideration workplace, Use ethical theory support position. Rationale This task designed: demonstrate capacity understand evaluate privacy; demonstrate understanding issues encroach individual's privacy workplace; demonstrate ability construct a compelling argument logically consistent supported ethical theory; Privacy of an individual in the workplace In the workplace, it is expected that employees must relinquish some of their most
They are also required to assess and address risks to customer information in all areas of operations, including employee management and training, information systems, and detecting and managing system failures. They must address what information is collected and stored as well as whether there is a business need for that particular information. Depending on the type of business operations, privacy laws govern how companies collect, store, and use customer identifiable
Workplace Monitoring As technology advances, employers worldwide are faced with the problem of employee's ill usage of the communication media. In order to reduce these risks, employers are now turning towards technology monitoring, which would enable them to keep a strict watch over their employees. A lot of issues have risen, as a result of workplace monitoring and the debate whether this act of the employers is ethically correct or not