Case 9-1
Summary
Nancy Chandler is a sales representative for the DEG Corporation, which is an online textbook sales
company. The company has an e-mail policy which states that the e-mail and communication system is to
be used for business reasons only and not for any personal or non-job relation purposes. In addition, there
is a non-solicitation policy which states that you cannot solicit without direct permission of management;
however, the exceptions to this policy are charitable and community activities including fundraising,
party invitations, and selling Girl Scout cookies.
Analysis
The DEG Corporation case is a question of rights more than anything else, and whether or not Nancy had
the right to send out e-mail on company time, from a company e-mail from a company server. The answer
to this question is “no” she did not. Management has a specific set of rights in modern organizations, with
that, it includes the right to create workplace data and device polices to protect data and to maintain
control of its networks, and the right to monitor the workplace to protect the organization and its
employees. Nancy violated both of these rights by sending the e-mail out.
Questions
1. Should Nancy Chandler have a reasonable expectation of a right to privacy in this case? Explain your
answer.
Two major issues are presented in this case: (1) the rights for employees to use the employer’s e–mail
system to communicate with one another regarding non-job-related matters and the rights for
2. If Nancy Chandler has not received any prior, formal disciplinary action, is there “just cause” for the
company to impose a written warning for this offense? Explain the reasoning for you answer to this
question.
As explained in this chapter, “just cause” is a set of standard tests for fairness in disciplinary action taken
by an employer and what level of discipline is appropriate. Although these standards originated in labor
3. Assuming that Nancy Chandler, as well as the other sales representatives, are “at–will” employees and
she is discharged for this infraction of the company’s rules, what possible recourse might she have to
challenge the termination?
Antidiscrimination laws provide an exception to the “at–will” doctrine, in that an employee may not be
terminated for an illegal reason. The inconsistent application of the company’s rules and policies in this
4. Considering the facts in this case, should the company review and revise these two policies? Explain
what, if any, revisions should be made to the policies.
The company’s management has a right to protect the firm and its business activities. However, overly
broad policies may violate certain protected employee rights under federal or state laws; particularly
during an employee’s nonworking time, such as unpaid rest breaks and lunch periods. The company, in
Case 9-2
Summary
Tim Nelson is a firefighter in the town of Happy Hollow, a small town located 15-min away from a major
city. Nelson has been employed as both a licensed paramedic and firefighter for the Happy Hollow fire
department for the last 4 years. One night, Tim and a friend decided to go out for drinks in the major city
close to Happy Hollow. In doing so, Tim had too much to drink and still decided to drive home.
Nelson was placed on administrative leave with pay and was given the opportunity to describe his side of
the story. He admitted that he did not realize that he hit anything and also that he had too much to drink
that evening. He also stated that he was willing to do whatever it takes to keep his job. The department
chief, Calvin Moore, noted that Nelson had a prior incident in another small city, and that he was
unwilling to give him a third chance. Additionally, the media had begun to cover the story, potentially
undermining the public’s trust in the fire department.
Analysis
This case provides opportunities to discuss two specific points: (1) whether or not the actions that take
place off duty and off the clock could be used against an employee, and (2) whether or not certain
occupations have a duty and obligation to uphold the public trust. In this case, the city rule and policy that
individuals must act in a manner that shows respect as a member of the fire department are enough to
have probable cause for Nelson’s termination.
Questions
1. May an employer take disciplinary action (including discharge) with an employee for illegal off-duty
misconduct?
If an employer learns that an employee has engaged in illegal conduct while off duty and if the conduct
has some definite impact on the employee’s work or the employer’s business interests, generally, the
2. Which particular employee rights, discussed in the chapter, may be asserted by the employee and his
labor union in this case?
The employee and his labor union representatives would assert the employee’s right to due process or his
right to be treated fairly and not be punished arbitrarily. Certainly, the employee would assert his right to
3. What rights does the management of an organization have in this case?
Management rights generally include the organization’s right to carry out its business operations in a
manner that would ensure high levels of productivity and that would protect the organization’s assets and
reputation. In a situation such as presented in this case, the organization’s management has an inherent
right to assure that an employee’s illegal misconduct (whether on duty or off duty) does no harm in the
community and that it would not cause a lack of public trust in the organization.
4. When conducting an investigation of an employee’s off-duty misconduct, what are the important
factors for the investigator to consider before recommending disciplinary action?
The investigator should consider affirmative answers to the follow questions:
Did the misconduct occur while the employee was not engaged in performing work for the organization?
5. When considering disciplinary action for an employee’s off-duty misconduct, what difference would
it make if an employee is or is not represented by a labor union?
If an employee is represented by a labor union, the labor agreement or collective bargaining agreement
generally states that an employee may only be disciplined or discharged for “just or proper cause.” The
labor union has a legal duty to fairly represent the employees covered by their collective bargaining
agreement if management is seen abusing its rights by imposing arbitrary and capricious disciplinary