Retaliated Against for Testifying Truthfully?

RICHARD CLAIRMONT V. SOUND MENTAL HEALTH, 09-35856, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 1/19/11

For purposes of Summary Judgment, evidence supported plaintiff's assertions that he was fired as a result of his truthful testimony. The Government failed to demonstrate that plaintiff's speech disrupted the workplace or impeded his ability to perform his job or that plaintiff would have been terminated had he not testified.

-Free Speech
-1st Amendment
-Triable Issue(s) of Fact
-Retaliatory Termination for Testifying Truthfully
-Independent Contractor/Public Employee

Here is the decision:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000011143

Employee Email Sent To Attorney Via Company Server Not Private - Privacy Rights at Work

Anything you send via a company computer network/server can be discovered. In this case, the Court held that communications to an employee's attorney were not confidential. If you do not want your employer to see who you are emailing or what you are saying, do not email anything through the server, even if the communication is on your own "private" email account, for example yahoo, aol, gmail, etc.

An employer/person may not tape record you with out your consent.

Here is the link to the decision:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C059133.PDF 

Summary: e-mails sent by the Plaintiff to her attorney regarding possible legal action against defendants did not constitute “confidential communication between client and lawyer” within the meaning of California Evidence Code section 952.

This is so because Holmes used a computer of defendant company to send the e-mails even though (1) she had been told of the company‟s policy that its computers were to be used only for company business and that employees were prohibited from using them to send or receive personal e-mail, (2) she had been warned that the company would monitor its computers for compliance with this company policy and thus might “inspect all files and messages . . . at any time,” and (3) she had been explicitly advised that employees using company computers to create or maintain personal information or messages “have no right of privacy with respect to that information or message.”