In the “Alice in Wonderland” world of employment law, one of the hard parts of an in-house lawyer’s job is telling an internal client that something that makes zero practical sense makes complete legal sense. For example, an employee may be able to turn over confidential company information and then prevail against that same company in an anti-retaliation or wrongful-discharge suit. Wait, what? Have courts really made such decisions? The answer is yes, many times.
Look at Sharon Randolph and Tami Thompson v. ADT Security Services Inc. out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. In its order the court sketched out the facts: Randolph and Thompson went to work for ADT selling home security services. They alleged ADT made promises to them regarding commissions and bonuses. When the promises were purportedly broken, they filed wage complaints with a state agency. But they attached client contracts to the complaints that contained confidential information, including customer names, addresses, phone numbers and payment information. Some of the information revealed the location of alarm panels and alarm passwords.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
