Comparative Privacy Law Project The purpose of this project is to analyze and compare various workplace privacy laws in the United States. Students must analyze three (3) legal cases involving a privacy issue in the workplace from three (3) different states. Examples of common privacy issues are drug-testing, employer monitoring of employees' computers, confidentiality of personnel or medical files, video or audio recording and employer intrusion into employees' workspace. Ideally, each student should choose one issue and find how three states have decided the particular issue. For example, how the courts have analyzed employee drug testing in Connecticut, Massachusetts and RI. However, some state courts may not have addressed identical issues. If a student is having difficulty finding an analysis of the same issue, then the student may analyze different issues although legal cases from three different states must be analyzed. The analysis must be in \"legal brief form\". \"Briefing\" is the method used by attorneys to summarize a legal decision and subsequently refer to it without having to reread the entire decision. It is composed of four parts: 1. 2. 3. 4. Citation: The parties involved, the court and date; Facts: A summary of the pertinent facts of the case that gave rise to the issue. Holding: What the court decided. Reasoning: Why the court decided the way it did. Describing the legal reasoning the court used and how the court applied the law to the particular facts. At the end of each brief, the student should explain how the decision could be applied to workplace policies in no more than one or two sentences. For example: Professional Pointer: Medical records should be kept separately from personnel files and shown on a need to know basis. Each student is required to submit three briefs, totaling no more than eight (8) pages, as well as be prepared to explain and discuss the cases in class. An example of a legal brief is located in the course file. Sample Legal Brief Citation: Goss v. Lopez, No. 73-898, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 419 U.S. 565; 95 S. Ct. 729; 42 L. Ed. 2d 725; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 23, October 16, 1974, Argued, January 22, 1975, Decided Facts: Students in the Columbus, Ohio, public schools brought this suit. The students claimed that their constitutional right to due process had been violated when they were suspended temporarily without a hearing prior to their suspensions. The Ohio Code provides for free education for all students between the ages of six and twentyone. Principals may suspend students for misconduct for up to ten days or expel them. In such cases, the school officials must notify parents of the suspension or expulsion within twenty-four hours and include a notice of the reasons. Suspended students may appeal to the board of education. The suspensions of the ten students, who brought this action, occurred during a period of widespread unrest in the Columbus public schools. Issue: Whether students may be suspended for ten days or less without due process of law. Holding: Suspensions of ten days or less are not de minimis. Due process is required before school officials can suspend students. Reasoning: Under Ohio law, the plaintiffs had a right to public education; therefore, school officials must accord them due process before depriving them of protected interests. Schools have broad authority to establish and enforce standards of conduct; however, such authority is subject to constitutional limitations. Students have a property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment to an education. The court reasoned that \"the State is constrained to recognize a student's legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause and which may not be taken away for misconduct without adherence to the minimum procedures required by that Clause.\" The Due Process Clause also protects liberty interests to a good name and reputation from arbitrary action by the state. Short suspensions are less intrusive on students' rights than are expulsions; however, exclusion from the educational system for ten days is not de minimis. In order to protect property and liberty interests, courts cannot permit school systems to impose suspensions in any way they deem appropriate. If due process applies, what process is due? Due process requires notice and a hearing prior to suspension for ten days or less. A hearing consists in giving the student \"an opportunity to explain his/her version of the facts.\" The court stopped short of requiring more extensive due process protectionsright to counsel, confronting and cross examining witnesses, and compulsory process for witnessesin suspensions of ten days or less. The court recognized that requiring extensive due process protections in short-term suspensions would overwhelm the resources of the schools. Providing students and their parents with notice and an informal hearing to tell their version of the incident \"will provide a meaningful hedge against erroneous action.\" The court further noted that more extensive due process requirements are required in long-term suspensions. 1 Running head: LEGAL BRIEF 1 Legal Brief Name Institution LEGAL BRIEF 2 Legal Brief Case One Citation (State of Connecticut v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent, No. 19590, Supreme Court of Connecticut (Aug. 30)). Facts The case is about an individual called Gregory Linhoff who was found to be smoking weed while he was on duty working on the March of 2012. Gregory was an employee of the Connecticut's health center got fifteen years and when he was arrested for smoking marijuana in the streets of Connecticut, the police impounded two other bags of weed in the vehicle that at the time belonged to the institution. On learning of this incident, the state terminated his employment stating that he had violated a number of work policies including ensuring that the work place is a drug free zone ("Connecticut High Court Reinstates Employee Fired for Smoking Marijuana", 2017). Holding The court found that the judgment to have Gregory sent off from work was a little bit too harsh and that he should be given a chance to be able to reform. He said in a case like that, given that it was his first instance he should have been warned and given a six months suspension where he should have gone for six months without pay with constant checks on return to work. Reasoning LEGAL BRIEF 3 The court in their reasoning used the Burr Road factor which is used to analyze whether an arbitration award that reinstates an employee goes against public policy. In this situation, the award of reinstatement did not go against Connecticut's policy on marijuana use at the workplace. The court found that Linhoff's return to work did not in any way harm public safety. Secondly, the court also found that although his conduct was inappropriate it was not that bad. Also, Linhoff was struggling with anxiety and stress related issues which led him to abuse marijuana and for that reason the court saw that Linhoff was not in that situation out of choice but because of the situation that he was in Case Two Citation STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, Sc. DISTRICT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION Cynthia Dube : v. : A.A. No. 13 - 206 :Department of Labor and Training, : Board of Review : Facts Mrs. Cynthia Dube was an employee of Cintas Corporation until June 14, 2013. On this date there was a dispute at work that Cynthia was operating at the workplace under the influence of alcohol. The issue in this case is that the claimant says that she was fired while the employers say that the employee quit. On September 2014 when the employee applied for her benefits she was denied with the employer stating that the employees quit without good reason. The employer say LEGAL BRIEF 4 that Cynthia was supposed to be tested to further cement their proof but he refused and that is how she left the company. On the other hand Cynthia states that she left after she was fired for failing to take up a drug test ("Case No. 13-206 Dube vs. RI Dept. of Labor and Training Board of Review", 2017). Holding The courts held that Cynthia was right in holding that the Board of Review of the Department of Labor and training erred in their decision to state that Mrs. Cynthia Dube was not entitled to any kind of compensation after he left the company because he left without a good cause. Reasoning The labor laws in Rhode Island are very clear that an employee if they leave work without good cause, then they are not liable for any kind of benefits from the company. However if the employee informed the company, of his/her decision to leave 8 weeks prior to them leaving then they left with good cause and that is allowed. In this case however, it was determined that the employee left without good cause after she was asked to take the drug test. However, it was found out that the drug test was unauthorized under the drug-test statute as the employee was forced into it which is not supposed to be the case. Because of this situation the court thought that the case should be taken back to the Board of Review for consideration in light of the new found fact. LEGAL BRIEF 5 Case Three Citation JAMES A. WEBSTER & another vs. MOTOROLA, INC., & others. 418 Mass. 425 April 5, 1994 - July 21, 1994 Suffolk County Facts The employees who involved James Webster and other employees brought up a case where they said that their employees were violating the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, section 11I. these law states that a mandatory check conducted by employers to their employees against their will to check for drugs in their system was against the privacy laws in Massachusetts. The employees were complaining that some of these tests they had not prepared for and that the employer was taking advantage of the fact that he was in charge to coerce them into taking the tests ("WEBSTER vs. MOTOROLA, INC., 418 Mass. 425", 2017). Holding The court ruled that in light of the nature of the businesses the plaintiffs were in, the plaintiff's duties and responsibilities and the program testing procedures which are supposed to be as accurate as possible, the drug testing was reasonable to one employee but not very reasonable to the other employee. LEGAL BRIEF 6 Reasoning The law for privacy at the workplace states that an employer is allowed to take the test on the employee based on the rights and responsibilities of the employees and the nature of the business as well as the state of the machine being used in the checkup. In the above situation it was held that the drug test against Webster was allowed and normal because, in that kind of situation Webster drives company machinery and if he is not sober then an accident might occur at the workplace and it might affect other people therefore it was important for the test to be conducted as for Joyce the other plaintiff, his was considered illegal because his job does not have a direct harmful effect to the public because his job is to edit different information coming into the company that he was working at. His job therefore unlike Webster's did not have ay chances that it would hurt a member of public LEGAL BRIEF 7 References Case No. 13-206 Dube vs. RI Dept. of Labor and Training Board of Review. (2017). Dlt.state.ri.us. Retrieved 6 May 2017, from http://www.dlt.state.ri.us/bor/cases/dube.htm Connecticut High Court Reinstates Employee Fired for Smoking Marijuana. (2017). SHRM. Retrieved 6 May 2017, from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-andcompliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/connecticut-marijuana-case.aspx WEBSTER vs. MOTOROLA, INC., 418 Mass. 425. (2017). Masscases.com. Retrieved 6 May 2017, from http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/418/418mass425.html Running head: LEGAL BRIEF 1 Legal Brief Name Institution LEGAL BRIEF 2 Legal Brief Case One Citation (State of Connecticut v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent, No. 19590, Supreme Court of Connecticut (Aug. 30)). Facts The case is about an individual called Gregory Linhoff who was found to be smoking weed while he was on duty working on the March of 2012. Gregory was an employee of the Connecticut's health center got fifteen years and when he was arrested for smoking marijuana in the streets of Connecticut, the police impounded two other bags of weed in the vehicle that at the time belonged to the institution. On learning of this incident, the state terminated his employment stating that he had violated a number of work policies including ensuring that the work place is a drug free zone ("Connecticut High Court Reinstates Employee Fired for Smoking Marijuana", 2017). Holding The court found that the judgment to have Gregory sent off from work was a little bit too harsh and that he should be given a chance to be able to reform. He said in a case like that, given that it was his first instance he should have been warned and given a six months suspension where he should have gone for six months without pay with constant checks on return to work. Reasoning LEGAL BRIEF 3 The court in their reasoning used the Burr Road factor which is used to analyze whether an arbitration award that reinstates an employee goes against public policy. In this situation, the award of reinstatement did not go against Connecticut's policy on marijuana use at the workplace. The court found that Linhoff's return to work did not in any way harm public safety. Secondly, the court also found that although his conduct was inappropriate it was not that bad. Also, Linhoff was struggling with anxiety and stress related issues which led him to abuse marijuana and for that reason the court saw that Linhoff was not in that situation out of choice but because of the situation that he was in Professional Pointer Employees should be subjected to drug tests at least once every year to ensure cases like these do not appear. Also, the employees found with drug intake issues should be taken in for counseling to try and help up their behavior. Case Two Citation STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, Sc. DISTRICT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION Cynthia Dube : v. : A.A. No. 13 - 206 :Department of Labor and Training, : Board of Review : Facts LEGAL BRIEF 4 Mrs. Cynthia Dube was an employee of Cintas Corporation until June 14, 2013. On this date there was a dispute at work that Cynthia was operating at the workplace under the influence of alcohol. The issue in this case is that the claimant says that she was fired while the employers say that the employee quit. On September 2014 when the employee applied for her benefits she was denied with the employer stating that the employees quit without good reason. The employer say that Cynthia was supposed to be tested to further cement their proof but he refused and that is how she left the company. On the other hand Cynthia states that she left after she was fired for failing to take up a drug test ("Case No. 13-206 Dube vs. RI Dept. of Labor and Training Board of Review", 2017). Holding The courts held that Cynthia was right in holding that the Board of Review of the Department of Labor and training erred in their decision to state that Mrs. Cynthia Dube was not entitled to any kind of compensation after he left the company because he left without a good cause. Reasoning The labor laws in Rhode Island are very clear that an employee if they leave work without good cause, then they are not liable for any kind of benefits from the company. However if the employee informed the company, of his/her decision to leave 8 weeks prior to them leaving then they left with good cause and that is allowed. In this case however, it was determined that the employee left without good cause after she was asked to take the drug test. However, it was found out that the drug test was unauthorized under the drug-test statute as the employee was forced into it which is not supposed to be the case. Because of this situation the court thought LEGAL BRIEF 5 that the case should be taken back to the Board of Review for consideration in light of the new found fact. Professional Pointer Employees contracts should contain a clause that gives power to the organization for drug testing when they deem fit. This will help in alienating cases like this where the employee is suing an employer for making them take a drug test. Case Three Citation JAMES A. WEBSTER & another vs. MOTOROLA, INC., & others. 418 Mass. 425 April 5, 1994 - July 21, 1994 Suffolk County Facts The employees who involved James Webster and other employees brought up a case where they said that their employees were violating the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, section 11I. these LEGAL BRIEF 6 law states that a mandatory check conducted by employers to their employees against their will to check for drugs in their system was against the privacy laws in Massachusetts. The employees were complaining that some of these tests they had not prepared for and that the employer was taking advantage of the fact that he was in charge to coerce them into taking the tests ("WEBSTER vs. MOTOROLA, INC., 418 Mass. 425", 2017). Holding The court ruled that in light of the nature of the businesses the plaintiffs were in, the plaintiff's duties and responsibilities and the program testing procedures which are supposed to be as accurate as possible, the drug testing was reasonable to one employee but not very reasonable to the other employee. Reasoning The law for privacy at the workplace states that an employer is allowed to take the test on the employee based on the rights and responsibilities of the employees and the nature of the business as well as the state of the machine being used in the checkup. In the above situation it was held that the drug test against Webster was allowed and normal because, in that kind of situation Webster drives company machinery and if he is not sober then an accident might occur at the workplace and it might affect other people therefore it was important for the test to be conducted as for Joyce the other plaintiff, his was considered illegal because his job does not have a direct harmful effect to the public because his job is to edit different information coming into the company that he was working at. His job therefore unlike Webster's did not have ay chances that it would hurt a member of public LEGAL BRIEF 7 Professional Pointer Employees contracts should contain a clause that gives power to the organization for drug testing when they deem fit. This will help in alienating cases like this where the employee is suing an employer for making them take a drug test. LEGAL BRIEF 8 References Case No. 13-206 Dube vs. RI Dept. of Labor and Training Board of Review. (2017). Dlt.state.ri.us. Retrieved 6 May 2017, from http://www.dlt.state.ri.us/bor/cases/dube.htm Connecticut High Court Reinstates Employee Fired for Smoking Marijuana. (2017). SHRM. Retrieved 6 May 2017, from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-andcompliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/connecticut-marijuana-case.aspx WEBSTER vs. MOTOROLA, INC., 418 Mass. 425. (2017). Masscases.com. Retrieved 6 May 2017, from http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/418/418mass425.html Running head: LEGAL BRIEF 1 Legal Brief Name Institution LEGAL BRIEF 2 Legal Brief Case One Citation (State of Connecticut v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent, No. 19590, Supreme Court of Connecticut (Aug. 30)). Facts The case is about an individual called Gregory Linhoff who was found to be smoking weed while he was on duty working on the March of 2012. Gregory was an employee of the Connecticut's health center got fifteen years and when he was arrested for smoking marijuana in the streets of Connecticut, the police impounded two other bags of weed in the vehicle that at the time belonged to the institution. On learning of this incident, the state terminated his employment stating that he had violated a number of work policies including ensuring that the work place is a drug free zone ("Connecticut High Court Reinstates Employee Fired for Smoking Marijuana", 2017). Holding The court found that the judgment to have Gregory sent off from work was a little bit too harsh and that he should be given a chance to be able to reform. He said in a case like that, given that it was his first instance he should have been warned and given a six months suspension where he should have gone for six months without pay with constant checks on return to work. Reasoning LEGAL BRIEF 3 The court in their reasoning used the Burr Road factor which is used to analyze whether an arbitration award that reinstates an employee goes against public policy. In this situation, the award of reinstatement did not go against Connecticut's policy on marijuana use at the workplace. The court found that Linhoff's return to work did not in any way harm public safety. Secondly, the court also found that although his conduct was inappropriate it was not that bad. Also, Linhoff was struggling with anxiety and stress related issues which led him to abuse marijuana and for that reason the court saw that Linhoff was not in that situation out of choice but because of the situation that he was in Case Two Citation STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, Sc. DISTRICT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION Cynthia Dube : v. : A.A. No. 13 - 206 :Department of Labor and Training, : Board of Review : Facts Mrs. Cynthia Dube was an employee of Cintas Corporation until June 14, 2013. On this date there was a dispute at work that Cynthia was operating at the workplace under the influence of alcohol. The issue in this case is that the claimant says that she was fired while the employers say that the employee quit. On September 2014 when the employee applied for her benefits she was denied with the employer stating that the employees quit without good reason. The employer say LEGAL BRIEF 4 that Cynthia was supposed to be tested to further cement their proof but he refused and that is how she left the company. On the other hand Cynthia states that she left after she was fired for failing to take up a drug test ("Case No. 13-206 Dube vs. RI Dept. of Labor and Training Board of Review", 2017). Holding The courts held that Cynthia was right in holding that the Board of Review of the Department of Labor and training erred in their decision to state that Mrs. Cynthia Dube was not entitled to any kind of compensation after he left the company because he left without a good cause. Reasoning The labor laws in Rhode Island are very clear that an employee if they leave work without good cause, then they are not liable for any kind of benefits from the company. However if the employee informed the company, of his/her decision to leave 8 weeks prior to them leaving then they left with good cause and that is allowed. In this case however, it was determined that the employee left without good cause after she was asked to take the drug test. However, it was found out that the drug test was unauthorized under the drug-test statute as the employee was forced into it which is not supposed to be the case. Because of this situation the court thought that the case should be taken back to the Board of Review for consideration in light of the new found fact. LEGAL BRIEF 5 Case Three Citation JAMES A. WEBSTER & another vs. MOTOROLA, INC., & others. 418 Mass. 425 April 5, 1994 - July 21, 1994 Suffolk County Facts The employees who involved James Webster and other employees brought up a case where they said that their employees were violating the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, section 11I. these law states that a mandatory check conducted by employers to their employees against their will to check for drugs in their system was against the privacy laws in Massachusetts. The employees were complaining that some of these tests they had not prepared for and that the employer was taking advantage of the fact that he was in charge to coerce them into taking the tests ("WEBSTER vs. MOTOROLA, INC., 418 Mass. 425", 2017). Holding The court ruled that in light of the nature of the businesses the plaintiffs were in, the plaintiff's duties and responsibilities and the program testing procedures which are supposed to be as accurate as possible, the drug testing was reasonable to one employee but not very reasonable to the other employee. LEGAL BRIEF 6 Reasoning The law for privacy at the workplace states that an employer is allowed to take the test on the employee based on the rights and responsibilities of the employees and the nature of the business as well as the state of the machine being used in the checkup. In the above situation it was held that the drug test against Webster was allowed and normal because, in that kind of situation Webster drives company machinery and if he is not sober then an accident might occur at the workplace and it might affect other people therefore it was important for the test to be conducted as for Joyce the other plaintiff, his was considered illegal because his job does not have a direct harmful effect to the public because his job is to edit different information coming into the company that he was working at. His job therefore unlike Webster's did not have ay chances that it would hurt a member of public LEGAL BRIEF 7 References Case No. 13-206 Dube vs. RI Dept. of Labor and Training Board of Review. (2017). Dlt.state.ri.us. Retrieved 6 May 2017, from http://www.dlt.state.ri.us/bor/cases/dube.htm Connecticut High Court Reinstates Employee Fired for Smoking Marijuana. (2017). SHRM. Retrieved 6 May 2017, from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-andcompliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/connecticut-marijuana-case.aspx WEBSTER vs. MOTOROLA, INC., 418 Mass. 425. (2017). Masscases.com. Retrieved 6 May 2017, from http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/418/418mass425.html Running head: LEGAL BRIEF 1 Legal Brief Name Institution LEGAL BRIEF 2 Legal Brief Case One Citation (State of Connecticut v. Connecticut Employees Union Independent, No. 19590, Supreme Court of Connecticut (Aug. 30)). Facts The case is about an individual called Gregory Linhoff who was found to be smoking weed while he was on duty working on the March of 2012. Gregory was an employee of the Connecticut's health center got fifteen years and when he was arrested for smoking marijuana in the streets of Connecticut, the police impounded two other bags of weed in the vehicle that at the time belonged to the institution. On learning of this incident, the state terminated his employment stating that he had violated a number of work policies including ensuring that the work place is a drug free zone ("Connecticut High Court Reinstates Employee Fired for Smoking Marijuana", 2017). Holding The court found that the judgment to have Gregory sent off from work was a little bit too harsh and that he should be given a chance to be able to reform. He said in a case like that, given that it was his first instance he should have been warned and given a six months suspension where he should have gone for six months without pay with constant checks on return to work. Reasoning LEGAL BRIEF 3 The court in their reasoning used the Burr Road factor which is used to analyze whether an arbitration award that reinstates an employee goes against public policy. In this situation, the award of reinstatement did not go against Connecticut's policy on marijuana use at the workplace. The court found that Linhoff's return to work did not in any way harm public safety. Secondly, the court also found that although his conduct was inappropriate it was not that bad. Also, Linhoff was struggling with anxiety and stress related issues which led him to abuse marijuana and for that reason the court saw that Linhoff was not in that situation out of choice but because of the situation that he was in Professional Pointer Employees should be subjected to drug tests at least once every year to ensure cases like these do not appear. Also, the employees found with drug intake issues should be taken in for counseling to try and help up their behavior. Case Two Citation STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, Sc. DISTRICT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION Cynthia Dube : v. : A.A. No. 13 - 206 :Department of Labor and Training, : Board of Review : Facts LEGAL BRIEF 4 Mrs. Cynthia Dube was an employee of Cintas Corporation until June 14, 2013. On this date there was a dispute at work that Cynthia was operating at the workplace under the influence of alcohol. The issue in this case is that the claimant says that she was fired while the employers say that the employee quit. On September 2014 when the employee applied for her benefits she was denied with the employer stating that the employees quit without good reason. The employer say that Cynthia was supposed to be tested to further cement their proof but he refused and that is how she left the company. On the other hand Cynthia states that she left after she was fired for failing to take up a drug test ("Case No. 13-206 Dube vs. RI Dept. of Labor and Training Board of Review", 2017). Holding The courts held that Cynthia was right in holding that the Board of Review of the Department of Labor and training erred in their decision to state that Mrs. Cynthia Dube was not entitled to any kind of compensation after he left the company because he left without a good cause. Reasoning The labor laws in Rhode Island are very clear that an employee if they leave work without good cause, then they are not liable for any kind of benefits from the company. However if the employee informed the company, of his/her decision to leave 8 weeks prior to them leaving then they left with good cause and that is allowed. In this case however, it was determined that the employee left without good cause after she was asked to take the drug test. However, it was found out that the drug test was unauthorized under the drug-test statute as the employee was forced into it which is not supposed to be the case. Because of this situation the court thought LEGAL BRIEF 5 that the case should be taken back to the Board of Review for consideration in light of the new found fact. Professional Pointer Employees contracts should contain a clause that gives power to the organization for drug testing when they deem fit. This will help in alienating cases like this where the employee is suing an employer for making them take a drug test. Case Three Citation JAMES A. WEBSTER & another vs. MOTOROLA, INC., & others. 418 Mass. 425 April 5, 1994 - July 21, 1994 Suffolk County Facts The employees who involved James Webster and other employees brought up a case where they said that their employees were violating the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, section 11I. these LEGAL BRIEF 6 law states that a mandatory check conducted by employers to their employees against their will to check for drugs in their system was against the privacy laws in Massachusetts. The employees were complaining that some of these tests they had not prepared for and that the employer was taking advantage of the fact that he was in charge to coerce them into taking the tests ("WEBSTER vs. MOTOROLA, INC., 418 Mass. 425", 2017). Holding The court ruled that in light of the nature of the businesses the plaintiffs were in, the plaintiff's duties and responsibilities and the program testing procedures which are supposed to be as accurate as possible, the drug testing was reasonable to one employee but not very reasonable to the other employee. Reasoning The law for privacy at the workplace states that an employer is allowed to take the test on the employee based on the rights and responsibilities of the employees and the nature of the business as well as the state of the machine being used in the checkup. In the above situation it was held that the drug test against Webster was allowed and normal because, in that kind of situation Webster drives company machinery and if he is not sober then an accident might occur at the workplace and it might affect other people therefore it was important for the test to be conducted as for Joyce the other plaintiff, his was considered illegal because his job does not have a direct harmful effect to the public because his job is to edit different information coming into the company that he was working at. His job therefore unlike Webster's did not have ay chances that it would hurt a member of public LEGAL BRIEF 7 Professional Pointer Employees contracts should contain a clause that gives power to the organization for drug testing when they deem fit. This will help in alienating cases like this where the employee is suing an employer for making them take a drug test. LEGAL BRIEF 8 References Case No. 13-206 Dube vs. RI Dept. of Labor and Training Board of Review. (2017). Dlt.state.ri.us. Retrieved 6 May 2017, from http://www.dlt.state.ri.us/bor/cases/dube.htm Connecticut High Court Reinstates Employee Fired for Smoking Marijuana. (2017). SHRM. Retrieved 6 May 2017, from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-andcompliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/connecticut-marijuana-case.aspx WEBSTER vs. MOTOROLA, INC., 418 Mass. 425. (2017). Masscases.com. Retrieved 6 May 2017, from http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/418/418mass425.html