In
In Re Jordan, 2012 WL 1098275 (Tex. App. 2012), a woman sued her former employer claiming "that she was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and was fired for reporting it." Specifically, she claimed that she saw "sexually graphic content" on computers at work and it was oh-so-offensive to her. Why was it soooo, offensive? Because she had
never seen porn in her entire life until she started working there.
![](//1.bp.blogspot.com/--Sz_z0tYl2I/TWeyJjjaLSI/AAAAAAAAArU/IKU5BabXZjE/s200/Lawffice+Space+COTW.jpg)
The employer wasn't convinced so it sought some discovery. In particular, the employer wanted a forensic computer examiner to check out the employee's home computer for signs of porn in her Internet history and email. Mission accomplished! - the trial court granted just such an order.
Not so fast! The appeals court reversed (technically, it threatened the trial court with a writ of mandamus if it didn't vacate), holding that the employer was required to set forth its search methodology and the examiner's credentials. The trial court should also have considered a protective order and been "sensitive to the highly intrusive nature of computer storage search."
HT:
Internet Cases - and
Heather Bussing via colorful tweet.
No comments:
Post a Comment