View attached explanation and answer. Let me know if you have any questions.
Labor and Employment Law
Labor and employment laws have been put across to create balanced, fair, and just working
conditions. The implementations of these laws, too, have been hectic given that some incidents
occur uniquely and may require different judgment or assessment. A good example is when
business premises use video surveillance to enhance proper security in the workplace. However,
according to the law, installing cameras or surveillance cameras is wrong in places where people
expect privacy, for instance, in washrooms. This will guide us into the act of employee privacy.
All employees are entitled to the right to privacy. This includes giving employees the right to
disclose their matters, including their private matters and medical history. The cases below are a
summary or contain examples of cases involving invasion of employees’ privacy in different
Did the doctors violate Pettus’s privacy? Did the company have the right to insist that he
Medical records are considered personal information. There are a few instances when medical
reports can be disclosed, i.e., when required by the supervisor to inform any case of restriction.
Another instance is if the employer may need to know about any form of disability. The last
exception is the involvement of the government officials during investigations and so on. The
privacy act of 1974 has given employees proper protection from any invasion of their records
without their consent. However, in conjunction with the same, there is an exception to those
handling the information, for example, police officers and employees of the agency or company
that maintains the records. In this case, the doctors are the agency’s employees, i.e., a hospital
that had Pettus’ information. According to the privacy act, any employee’s information should not
be disclosed unless any written permit is provided. The doctors violated Pettus’ privacy by giving
out information that they were supposed to disclose. Pettus has the right to sue the whole agency,
i.e., the hospital, for not observing the privacy act. According to the privacy act, federal agencies
are prohibited from disclosing information or any record contained in any system of record.
On the other hand, the company did not have any right to insist that he attend rehab. In
conjunction with that, the said company is only supposed to advise their employees on what best
fits the situation. Insisting can be pointed out as invading a person’s privacy, but in this
condition, the view was on a business basis. Considering that rehabilitation mostly involves free
will, it was wrong for the company to insist on the action. It would have been right if the
company had advised him to attend rehabilitation sessions. The issue, in this case, can be drawn
to whether employees can be denied access to work or rather be dismissed for evidence that they
are drug users. Constitutionally, some steps can be followed to detect any drug use, such as
requesting a drug test from the employee. In many instances, an employee is supposed to be
notified in advance about any instance of sample collection. As in this case, Mr. Pettus had been
right to sue DuPont and the doctors for violating California’s Confidentiality of Medical
Information. It is correct to say that the doctor’s instruction was only to assess Mr. Pettus and
come up with a report stating whether he was viable for the leave or not. The company’s move
towards asking their employee to go for rehabilitation was a good…
15 Million Students Helped!
Create Account to order