- HUD “defers to Constitutional considerations” and dismisses complaint against woman who’d posted note at church seeking Christian roommate [Fox News, earlier; Oct. 28 statement from Michigan Department of Civil Rights]
- Judge denies class action status in Pelman obesity suit against McDonald’s [Bloomberg, earlier]
- “Campers mauled by bear at Lake Louise lose lawsuit against Parks Canada” [Calgary Herald]
- Supreme Court hears oral argument in Schwarzenegger violent-videogame case [Ilya Shapiro, Cato at Liberty]
- Oh, that liberal media: “Consumers’ right to file class actions is in danger” [David Lazarus, L.A. Times, on AT&T v. Concepcion arbitration case]
- NLRB files first complaint challenging employer’s social networking policy [Schwartz, Hyman]
- Publisher’s threats against 800Notes.com gripe site bolster case for libel-tourism law [Paul Alan Levy, CL&P; earlier on Julia Forte case]
- Nevada Supreme Court finds homeowner not liable for motorist’s crash into garden wall [seven years ago on Overlawyered]
3 Comments
OK. I’ll bite. What right does an employer have to regulate “off the clock internet activity”? What right does an employer have to regulate any “off the clock activity”. Please don’t be so petty as to throw drugs and alcohol at me. If the employee is under the influence of either or both then it isn’t an off the clock activity. I can understand rules about drinking while in company uniform or while driving a company vehicle, but are their any others? If the information posted about the Supervisor was inaccurate or total fiction, I can see where a suit for libel or slander would be in order.
[…] “Federal Government Acknowledges Constitutional Limits on Housing Discrimination Law” [Eugene Volokh on HUD dismissal of "Christian-roommate" complaint, earlier] […]
The problem is that if you identify yourself as an employee of the company, then unless you are very careful it can look like your personal statement is the position of the company. Thus many companies have policies that require you to explicitly state that you are not speaking for the company, if you do identify yourself as an employee. And saying your supervisor is can be taken as implying the company approves and supports that supervisor in that.