Write a paragraph response for the following:

-The Privacy Act of 1974 and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 both aim to safeguard personal information. Compare and contrast these two acts and explain their relevance in today's digital workplace environment.

-Briefly describe a case where the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was invoked. What was the outcome and what implications does it have for HR professionals? See case below*

David F. Freeman v. Ace Telephone Association

The issue is whether the employee was fired in retaliation for his whistle-blowing.

After Mr. Freeman was fired from his position as co-CEO of Ace, he sued his former employer for gender and marital-status discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), as well as retaliatory discharge in violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Statute. The district court granted Aces motion for summary judgment on all claims. Mr. Freeman appealed from the grant of summary judgment only as to his whistleblower claim.

Mr. Freeman claims that Ace fired him in retaliation for his report to its board of directors that the companys mileage reimbursement policy might result in violations of federal income tax laws. The company was reimbursing board members who carpooled to board meetings as if they had each driven separately, and it reported the payments as nontaxable reimbursements. Unless those board members who had not actually driven reported the payments as taxable income, they had violated federal tax laws.

According to Ace, Mr. Freeman was fired because he had a sexual relationship with a female subordinate employee and lied about it. The board began investigating Mr. Freemans relationship with the female employee in August, 2003. At the end of that month, Mr. Freeman submitted a letter to the board in which he admitted to having a friendly, not sexual relationship with the employee and promised to sever that relationship. Based on some reason to believe that the relationship continued, however, the board began a formal investigation and informed Mr. Freeman of the investigation at its meeting on 30 September 2003. Mr. Freeman first raised the mileage reimbursement issue with the board that same day. Two weeks later, on 14 October, Mr. Freeman submitted a sworn statement to the board in which he admitted to having a sexual relationship with the employee and lying about it to the board. A week after that, the board decided to terminate Mr. Freeman and notified him of its decision shortly thereafter.

The Minnesota Whistleblower Statute prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because the employee, in good faith, reported a violation or suspected violation of state or federal law to an employer, a governmental agency, or a law enforcement official. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the statute, Mr. Freeman had to show that he engaged in statutorily-protected conduct, that he was subjected to an adverse employment action, and that a causal connection existed between the two.

The timing of Mr. Freemans dismissal is insufficient to establish a prima facie retaliation claim. As we have said, two weeks after Mr. Freeman made his report to the board about the mileage issue, he admitted, in a sworn statement, to having a sexual relationship with the female employee and continuing that relationship after he promised the board that he would end it. He also admitted, moreover, that he lied to the board president, his co-CEO, and the companys human resources director about the relationship, that he used a company credit card to buy Viagra to continue the sexual relationship, and that he purchased private cell phones for himself and the female employee so that they could communicate secretly. We believe that no reasonable person could conclude on this record that Mr. Freemans report to the board about its mileage policy was causally related to the decision to fire him.

Because we find that Mr. Freeman did not produce evidence of a causal connection between his report to the board and his termination, we have no occasion to address the question of whether he engaged in protected activity under the statute, or whether Aces reasons for firing him were pretextual. For the reasons stated, we affirm the district courts order granting summary judgment.

Case Commentary

The 8th Circuit decided that Freemans alleged whistle-blowing activity was unrelated to his dismissal. His misuse of corporate funds, his sexual relationship with a subordinate, and his lying were the determining factors.

Case Questions

Do you agree with the courts reasoning?

Setting aside Freemans misdeeds, would his alleged whistle-blowing activity be covered under the statute?

What would be an ethical resolution to this case?