2 ms·
It seems to me that a company shouldn't be liable for anything an employee does outside of work unless there's evidence that the company specifically sanctioned
by Zak 15y ago
It seems to me that a company shouldn't be liable for anything an employee does outside of work unless there's evidence that the company specifically sanctioned such conduct.
In other words, the default should be "the opinions in this post are mine and mine alone..." for anything not explicitly done in the company's name.
- timwiseman 15y agoI am not a lawyer, but I am inclined to agree with you. However, the analysis for whether an employee's actions trigger respondeat superior is more complicated than that, especially for employees where the work/life balance may not be entirely clear (this is frequently true of executives and may be true of anyone that ever does post/publish/or even speak on behalf of the company). But even if it were clear that the employee's actions did not fall into the category, a company is rightly concerned about anything that would create even a colorable cause of action (in otherwords, anything someone could sue for without it being immediately thrown out). Also, the company might be worried about the appearance in the public's eyes even when lawsuits are entirely off the table.
- Zak 15y agoThere's an interesting policy question here: how could the law be written such that people do not become restricted from their usual right to talk about their fields due to liability without giving companies too big a back door through which to avoid liability? It would be fairly simple to construct a law that protects companies from liability for things their employees say, but what happens if an employee wants to say... give bad stock advice and pays an employee under the table to do so on his own time?