Right. What the company did was bad, regardless of the warning. But I think his argument would have been stronger if he had raised the issue after his initial

Right. What the company did was bad, regardless of the warning. But I think his argument would have been stronger if he had raised the issue after his initial warning. Why did they have to invade his privacy twice for it to become an issue for him? The answer: because he was sacked. This seems to change it from a privacy issue to a retaliation. Not that I'm okay at all with employers being able to violate his privacy, regardless of his motives for claiming his civil rights.