6 ms·

> Uber has the authority to say to its employees, "If you have anything at home you bring it in here Wait, what? In the opinion of the court, a company has th

by 08-15 10y ago

> Uber has the authority to say to its employees, "If you have anything at home you bring it in here Wait, what? In the opinion of the court, a company has the authority to demand that their employee hands over the contents of his personal computer? That doesn't sound right... please, somebody tell me the US judicial system isn't that retarded!

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
CobrastanJorji 10y ago
I mean, can't it? California is an "at-will" employment state, right? They could presumably fire an employee for refusing to straight up burn their own house down.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  As that would be arson I have some doubts it goes that far. It would be a very interesting whistleblowing case I suspect.
  - taneq 10y ago
    But the whistleblowing would be for "trying to force an employee to commit arson", not for firing them.
    - johncolanduoni 10y ago
      It doesn't seem to be that simple in most US jurisdictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Public_policy_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Public_poli...
- ridgeguy 10y ago
  That would constitute arson, and arson is a crime. It's not legal to procure criminal behavior, whether by an employment contract or by other coercive means.
  - biot 10y ago
    Technically, arson is burning down someone else's property. It's not a criminal offence to burn down a house you own, though it is likely a non-criminal fire code violation.
    - ridgeguy 10y ago
      I don't think that's right. For example, in the California Penal Code, "A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property." [1] The incendiary's ownership or not of the property doesn't matter. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=451 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
      - biot 10y ago
        From your link: For purposes of this paragraph, arson of property does not include one burning or causing to be burned his or her own personal property unless there is an intent to defraud or there is injury to another person or another person’s structure, forest land, or property.
        ridgeguy 10y ago
        Thank you - I agree it turns on mens rea. Burning one's own property can be criminal arson, depending on intent or result.
        biot 10y ago
        Just as you'd expect. Whether the property in question are books you own, or a shed, or your entire house it's your property and it's not a crime to turn your property into a bonfire so long as doing so doesn't break other criminal laws.
- mti 10y ago
  That's what we call a "fired if you do, fired if you don't" kind of situation.
oh_sigh 10y ago
You forgot the rest of it: > And you also have the authority to say, "And if you don't do that, you're fired."
lexicality 10y ago
Why would they not have the authority to do that? If they want, your employer could demand that you wear pink underwear of a particular brand at all times when in the building and fire you if you did not.
- chki 10y ago
  That is a very american perspective though. In Germany you are not allowed to fire someone for these reasons (you might be able to dismiss him for no reason at all but the contract will not be over for quite a long time) So the authority of a company firing somebody over not handing over their laptop can be reasonably questioned.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > That is a very american perspective though. Yes, and this case is between American parties, under American law, in the U.S. (of America) District Court for the Northern District of California.
    - chki 10y ago
      I'm aware of that and just wanted to point out why this american perspective can be questioned, which was -in my opinion- the intend of "08-15".
  - WrtCdEvrydy 10y ago
    As long as it's not discrimination based, you can fire someone for any reason. My boss could fire me for disliking the color of my T-Shirt this morning.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > As long as it's not discrimination based, you can fire someone for any reason. Every decision to choose one course of action over another is "discrimination-based"; you mean as long as it is not discrimination on an expressly-prohibited basis.
kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago
..."And if you don't do that, you're fired." I am guessing they do have the ability to fire on those grounds.
DannyBee 10y ago
http://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/subpoenas-using-subpoenas-to-obtain-evidence.pdf http://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/subpoenas-using-subpo...
snowwrestler 10y ago
Obviously there are limits on what a company can ask its employees to do. I don't think a company would get very far if it required employees to bring in nude photos or dress up in blackface or something. But in this case these are files that are related to the day job, and are materially impacting the business. Seems like they would be on solid ground conditioning further employment on furnishing the files.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> In the opinion of the court, a company has the authority to demand that their employee hands over the contents of his personal computer? This is absolutely the case with at-will employment, and maybe even with an executive or officer directly involved in a case even without that (and an executive likely has a contract that puts them under something other than simple at-will terms.) > That doesn't sound right... please, somebody tell me the US judicial system isn't that retarded! If you don't like the law, that doesn't make the judiciary retarded for correctly explaining it.
- unprepare 10y ago
  To me it sounds like you are saying no, an employer cannot compel you to give them your personal information, but that they can terminate your employment if you refuse to hand it over is that what you meant? I think 08-15's concern was more along the lines of an employer having the ability to demand someone to give up their personal information without their consent.
  - pc86 10y ago
    A company cannot make you give them any personal information without your consent. They can of course fire you for not doing so.
    - dx034 10y ago
      That of course is only valid in a few countries. In most European countries, firing someone for that would immediately be overturned by a court.
      - pc86 10y ago
        Considering this is an American federal court case between two American companies, concerning an American employee, for actions in America, I don't think "Yes but in Europe..." is relevant.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jimmywanger 10y ago
It's part of the standard employment contract, as a nuclear option that's only invoked in cases like this. Basically, if the employee refuses and the company fires the employee, the company can shield itself from liability by cutting ties with the employee and telling the court that they had no idea what the employee was up to and didn't condone it at all.
tdb7893 10y ago
They have evidence that he stole documents from a competitor. Asking him to prove he doesn't have any of those documents or be fired seems perfectly reasonable.

by 08-15 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

CobrastanJorji 10y ago

I mean, can't it? California is an "at-will" employment state, right? They could presumably fire an employee for refusing to straight up burn their own house down.

johncolanduoni 10y ago
As that would be arson I have some doubts it goes that far. It would be a very interesting whistleblowing case I suspect.
- taneq 10y ago
  But the whistleblowing would be for "trying to force an employee to commit arson", not for firing them.
  - johncolanduoni 10y ago
    It doesn't seem to be that simple in most US jurisdictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Public_policy_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Public_poli...
ridgeguy 10y ago
That would constitute arson, and arson is a crime. It's not legal to procure criminal behavior, whether by an employment contract or by other coercive means.
- biot 10y ago
  Technically, arson is burning down someone else's property. It's not a criminal offence to burn down a house you own, though it is likely a non-criminal fire code violation.
  - ridgeguy 10y ago
    I don't think that's right. For example, in the California Penal Code, "A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property." [1] The incendiary's ownership or not of the property doesn't matter. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=451 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
    - biot 10y ago
      From your link: For purposes of this paragraph, arson of property does not include one burning or causing to be burned his or her own personal property unless there is an intent to defraud or there is injury to another person or another person’s structure, forest land, or property.
      - ridgeguy 10y ago
        Thank you - I agree it turns on mens rea. Burning one's own property can be criminal arson, depending on intent or result.
        biot 10y ago
        Just as you'd expect. Whether the property in question are books you own, or a shed, or your entire house it's your property and it's not a crime to turn your property into a bonfire so long as doing so doesn't break other criminal laws.
mti 10y ago
That's what we call a "fired if you do, fired if you don't" kind of situation.

oh_sigh 10y ago

You forgot the rest of it: > And you also have the authority to say, "And if you don't do that, you're fired."

lexicality 10y ago

Why would they not have the authority to do that? If they want, your employer could demand that you wear pink underwear of a particular brand at all times when in the building and fire you if you did not.

chki 10y ago
That is a very american perspective though. In Germany you are not allowed to fire someone for these reasons (you might be able to dismiss him for no reason at all but the contract will not be over for quite a long time) So the authority of a company firing somebody over not handing over their laptop can be reasonably questioned.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > That is a very american perspective though. Yes, and this case is between American parties, under American law, in the U.S. (of America) District Court for the Northern District of California.
  - chki 10y ago
    I'm aware of that and just wanted to point out why this american perspective can be questioned, which was -in my opinion- the intend of "08-15".
- WrtCdEvrydy 10y ago
  As long as it's not discrimination based, you can fire someone for any reason. My boss could fire me for disliking the color of my T-Shirt this morning.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > As long as it's not discrimination based, you can fire someone for any reason. Every decision to choose one course of action over another is "discrimination-based"; you mean as long as it is not discrimination on an expressly-prohibited basis.

kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago

..."And if you don't do that, you're fired." I am guessing they do have the ability to fire on those grounds.

DannyBee 10y ago

http://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/subpoenas-using-subpoenas-to-obtain-evidence.pdf http://www.weil.com/~/media/files/pdfs/subpoenas-using-subpo...

snowwrestler 10y ago

Obviously there are limits on what a company can ask its employees to do. I don't think a company would get very far if it required employees to bring in nude photos or dress up in blackface or something. But in this case these are files that are related to the day job, and are materially impacting the business. Seems like they would be on solid ground conditioning further employment on furnishing the files.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> In the opinion of the court, a company has the authority to demand that their employee hands over the contents of his personal computer? This is absolutely the case with at-will employment, and maybe even with an executive or officer directly involved in a case even without that (and an executive likely has a contract that puts them under something other than simple at-will terms.) > That doesn't sound right... please, somebody tell me the US judicial system isn't that retarded! If you don't like the law, that doesn't make the judiciary retarded for correctly explaining it.

unprepare 10y ago
To me it sounds like you are saying no, an employer cannot compel you to give them your personal information, but that they can terminate your employment if you refuse to hand it over is that what you meant? I think 08-15's concern was more along the lines of an employer having the ability to demand someone to give up their personal information without their consent.
- pc86 10y ago
  A company cannot make you give them any personal information without your consent. They can of course fire you for not doing so.
  - dx034 10y ago
    That of course is only valid in a few countries. In most European countries, firing someone for that would immediately be overturned by a court.
    - pc86 10y ago
      Considering this is an American federal court case between two American companies, concerning an American employee, for actions in America, I don't think "Yes but in Europe..." is relevant.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jimmywanger 10y ago

It's part of the standard employment contract, as a nuclear option that's only invoked in cases like this. Basically, if the employee refuses and the company fires the employee, the company can shield itself from liability by cutting ties with the employee and telling the court that they had no idea what the employee was up to and didn't condone it at all.

tdb7893 10y ago

They have evidence that he stole documents from a competitor. Asking him to prove he doesn't have any of those documents or be fired seems perfectly reasonable.