Essay Sample on Patty Plaintiff's Really Bad Week

Introduction

As far as bad weeks are concerned, Patty Plaintiff had one of the worst of them. Patty needed a new laptop and decided to go shopping at her favorite shopping store called Cash Mart. However, her shopping experience turns out to be some form of abuse because one of the employees accused her of shoplifting and detained for hours before letting her go. As she leaves the store, she gets knocked unconscious by a golf ball from Gerry's backyard. She wakes up five days later and returns to work only to end up using the company's email to communicate with her mother about the injury. Her boss reprimands her. She decides to use her personal computer to post some disparaging comments about her boss which gets her fired from Acme Corporation the next day. Patty has had her legal rights violated by Cash Mart, Gerry and to some measure, Acme Corporation. She is legally allowed to make various tort claims against Cash Mart, and Gerry.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Patty can make one tort claim against Cash Mart. The Cash Mart employees violated a few of her rights. The store's security guard had no legal power to detain her without probable cause. The constitutional rights for retail operations vary according to the states, but all of them require probable cause. The security guard needed proof of Party shoplifting such as video evidence which he did not have. The second violation happened when the store security guard detained Patty in a small space. They took Patty to a small room at the back of the store. Store security has the right to prevent someone or keep the suspect under surveillance as they wait for the police to arrive if they have probable cause. In Patty's case, the guard did not have any probable cause to prevent Patty from leaving and went ahead detain Patty in a small confined space. Patty can sue for emotional distress caused by holding her. The emotional distress includes panic, fear, or anxiety that she may have felt while being detained by the security guard. The cases of emotional distress can be brought up in court in several ways. For example, she can sue the store for intentionally inflicting emotional pain to her. She can also sue the security guard for inflicting emotional distress to her due to negligence.

The second person that Patty can get legal claims from is Gerry. Gerry's decision to play golf at his backyard close to a public building is a case of negligence. Gerry's actions not only endangered Patty but other store users as well. Gerry's case is also one which Patty stands the highest chance of obtaining compensation. Patty can sue Gerry for negligence. There are four elements that Patty will need to establish before she can successfully launch a negligence case against Gerry. There is the duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.

The element of duty applies to every citizen of the country. According to the law, every person has a legal obligation to non-maleficence. That means that everyone should act in a way that does not inflict harm to others. The duty also varies according to a person and their protection. For example, hospital doctors are obliged to treat their patients. The police have a responsibility to protect their citizens. Gerry's as a member of the community had the duty to act in a way that causes little or no harm to the society. When he decided to strike that golf ball at his backyard, Gerry breached his duty of not causing damage to others. The third element was the causation of negligence. The causation of negligence seeks to establish whether the actions or inactions of the defendant led to the injury suffered by the defendant. In this case, it is a known fact that Gerry's actions directly led to Patty's injuries and caused her to be hospitalized. Finally, there is the damage element. The plaintiff needs to prove that there were actual damages incurred from the plaintiff's actions. The damages can either be punitive, nominal of compensatory. Punitive damages are meant to punish Gerry for his actions. The nominal damages apply where the case of negligence has been proven, but there were no losses that resulted from the negligent act. On the other hand, the compensatory damages can either be special or general. Special damages compensate the plaintiff on the material possessions that she may have lost as a result of the negligent action of Gerry. The general compensatory damages involve monetary compensation where Patty will be awarded money for the injuries that the incurred from Gerry's activities.

Finally, there is the issue with Patty's employer, Acme Corporation. The matter with Patty's employer is quite complicated because Patty is partly at fault for violating company policy. Furthermore, the tenets of employee privacy in electronic communication is a developing area in the field of law. However, companies are allowed to monitor emails sent through their email addresses for legal or businesses purposes. That is if Patty was using Acme Company's email for any reason whatsoever, whether work or personal reasons, the company had a right to monitor those activities. Therefore, Patty cannot raise a legal claim of privacy because company's emails are considered public. Companies follow the emails sent using their emails to avoid legal liability because, in case of litigation, they may be forced to hand over the electronic document.

Patty's decision to post negative comments about her boss on social media is also quite complicated. For a start, companies have their own policies regarding social media usage among their employees. Patty should have checked with the human resource department of her company to see Acme's policy about social media usage among its employees. For most companies, employees are not allowed to post or complain about work-related matters on social media. Also, there is the issue of whether she was the only person that was bullied by her boss. If she is the only one bullied, then she cannot post such comments because they are not protected by the National Labor Relations Act(NLR). The Act does not protect personal rants about employers. In this case, she posted disparaging comments about the employer which do not fall within the NLR Act of filing complaints. Also, if she mentioned the employer's name in the social media site, the employer has a right to review the comments of the employee to ensure the company's image and brand is not tarnished. Furthermore, most states have the 'employment at will' which allows the employer to fire an employee for no reason at all. However, if Patty did not include the company's name or company's name in the comments, it might mean the employer was targeting specific posts which gives her grounds to sue for discrimination.