Why does the court conclude that the plaintiff had a


Case: Stengart v. Loving Care Agency 201 N.J. 300 (2010) - Opinion by district judge Rabner:

CASE QUESTIONS

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the New Jersey Supreme Court decide?

2. Why does the Court conclude that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her e-mail communications with her lawyer? Why was the computer use policy not sufficient to extinguish any expectation of privacy?

3. This case was not brought as a privacy tort claim, but what if it had been? Was the intrusion of the sort that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person?

4. To what extent is this decision tied to the fact that an attorney-client communication was involved? Does the outcome of this case suggest that the Court would rule on behalf of a plaintiff in a pri-vacy tort claim based on some other type of communication using company property but not the company e-mail address or intranet? Why or why not?

5. What are some practical implications of this case for employers?

Request for Solution File

Ask an Expert for Answer!!
Business Law and Ethics: Why does the court conclude that the plaintiff had a
Reference No:- TGS01071262

Expected delivery within 24 Hours