BUSI 561 Case Presentation Instructions You will complete one Case Presentation during the course, based on cases that have been summarized in the book. You should go to LexisNexis and read the complete case, which will give you more details of both parties’ positions, as well as links to related law. Decide between you and your “opposing counsel” who will represent which party, and then present your position to the class. Your presentation should follow the general IRAC or Law + Facts = Conclusion analysis format we discussed in the first class. Include: · What court are you in and how did you get there? (almost all of the cases we discuss are decided by an appeals court, but were initially heard at a trial level court – explain that path for your case) · I = What is the major issue related to this chapter that is examined in this case? Note: most cases decide more than one issue. Focus on/analyze only the issue(s) related to the chapters we are reading this week. · R = What is the relevant law? Is it a statute? Regulation? Federal or state? Is it case precedent? Some combination (case precedent interpreting a statute)? · What are the key facts, i.e., the “legally relevant facts” needed to meet the elements of the law? What facts best support your position? · AC = Apply the law to the facts in a way that reaches a conclusion that would decide the case for your position. That necessarily means that one of you will be arguing for an outcome that the court did not hold; explain that position well enough for the class to discuss. · How would your position be fair and equitable? How may it move the law forward and provide a new or better rule? These are what we call “policy” arguments – not directly related to the law, but additional arguments for the court and society to consider. · How does your position comport with a Biblical worldview? There is no time limit (minimum or maximum), but I will budget about half an hour for the case (both presentations plus class discussion). You may present your case in any way that helps the class understand your position. Each case presentation is worth 100 points: Completeness 75 Analysis 25 Total 100 Case Presentation Score Your presentation should follow the general IRAC or Law + Facts = Conclusion analysis format we discussed in the first class. Include: What court are you in and how did you get there? (almost all of the cases we discuss are decided by an appeals court, but were initially heard at a trial level court – explain that path for your case) Venue What is the major issue in this case? Issue What is the relevant law? Is it a statute? Regulation? Federal or state? Is it case precedent? Some combination (case precedent interpreting a statute)? Rule of law What are the key facts, i.e., the “legally relevant facts” needed to meet the elements of the law? What facts best support your position? Facts Apply the law to the facts in a way that decides the case for you ...

1. BUSI 561
Case Presentation Instructions
You will complete one Case Presentation during the course,
based on cases that have been summarized in the book. You
should go to LexisNexis and read the complete case, which will
give you more details of both parties’ positions, as well as links
to related law. Decide between you and your “opposing
counsel” who will represent which party, and then present your
position to the class.
Your presentation should follow the general IRAC or Law +
Facts = Conclusion analysis format we discussed in the first
class. Include:
· What court are you in and how did you get there? (almost all
of the cases we discuss are decided by an appeals court, but
were initially heard at a trial level court – explain that path for
your case)
· I = What is the major issue related to this chapter that is
examined in this case? Note: most cases decide more than one
issue. Focus on/analyze only the issue(s) related to the chapters
we are reading this week.
· R = What is the relevant law? Is it a statute? Regulation?
Federal or state? Is it case precedent? Some combination (case
precedent interpreting a statute)?
· What are the key facts, i.e., the “legally relevant facts” needed
to meet the elements of the law? What facts best support your
position?
· AC = Apply the law to the facts in a way that reaches a
conclusion that would decide the case for your position. That
necessarily means that one of you will be arguing for an
outcome that the court did not hold; explain that position well
enough for the class to discuss.
· How would your position be fair and equitable? How may it

2. move the law forward and provide a new or better rule? These
are what we call “policy” arguments – not directly related to the
law, but additional arguments for the court and society to
consider.
· How does your position comport with a Biblical worldview?
There is no time limit (minimum or maximum), but I will
budget about half an hour for the case (both presentations plus
class discussion). You may present your case in any way that
helps the class understand your position.
Each case presentation is worth 100 points:
Completeness
75
Analysis
25
Total
100
Case Presentation Score
Your presentation should follow the general IRAC or Law +
Facts = Conclusion analysis format we discussed in the first
class. Include:
What court are you in and how did you get there? (almost all
of the cases we discuss are decided by an appeals court, but
were initially heard at a trial level court – explain that path for
your case)
Venue
What is the major issue in this case?

3. Issue
What is the relevant law? Is it a statute? Regulation? Federal
or state? Is it case precedent? Some combination (case
precedent interpreting a statute)?
Rule of law
What are the key facts, i.e., the “legally relevant facts” needed
to meet the elements of the law? What facts best support your
position?
Facts
Apply the law to the facts in a way that decides the case for
your position.
Application
How would your position be fair and equitable? How may it
move the law forward and provide a new or better rule?
Policy
Completeness
75
Analysis
25
Total
100
Page 1 of 2

4. Running Head: BUSINESS LAW
1
BUSINESS LAW
3
Business Law
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
You need to introduce the case here meaning what happened.
Who did what? The other guy did good here he was just saying
applicant not employee. Mention the name of the people. What
really happened? The court where the trial is conducted
normally determines who the defendant is and who is the
plaintiff or the applicant. The applicant in the trial may differ
when it comes to the court of appeal or even the Supreme Court.
In this case I am dissatisfied with the judgment and the findings
of the trial court therefore, the venue is the court of appeal
(where exactly is the place? Where is the court of appeal?)
which is the court tasked with the appeals from the trial court.
In this court I will be representing the applicants who were the
defendants at the trial court.
The appeal therefore lays both on both facts and the law. The
facts in question (not correct grammar) is who divulged the
passwords to the manager? The appeals in law could lie on the
question if it is one of the members of the group who divulged
the password could it be a waiver of their right to privacy? The
defendants could succeed on the assertion that the divulsion

5. (what do you mean by this word? There is a red mark here. Did
you mean Delusion) of the information by one of their members
amounted to waiver their right to privacy and they could not
claim from their manager but rather from their member who
divulged the information. The other issue for appeal is on
punitive damages which are reserve to circumstances where
certain actions may recidivate. An employer has a responsibility
unto his business to ensure that it runs well. This may be
interpreted to mean that the defendants were not acting
maliciously but on legitimate business reasons.
The relevant law in the above scenario is both statute law and
precedents. The relevant statutes are mainly the provisions of
Federal Stored Communications Act and the Wire Tap Act. The
court further used the precedent in Keyishian v. Board of
Regents of University of State of NY to help interprate the right
to privacy.
Under (is this word necessary or you just want to say “The rule
of law”)the rule of law, is to be respected by all and
administered equally. The threshold for determining what is
right or wrong is pegged on the law. The SCA Act addresses
compelled and voluntary disclosure of stored electronic and
wire communications and transactional records held by a third
party internet service provider. This means that all their
information should be kept private and no one should access
their protected information without their consent. The
defendants’ argument was that since St. Jean who is said to
have reported the existence of the group to the Hillstone
manager was an authorized user, and then there is no liability
under the statutes based on the exception (Miller, 2014).
Besides that, in the freedom of speech part, the defendant also
argued that the company was a private employer not a state
actor and so the constitutional obligations can only be directed
at state action. In addition to that, they argued that even if the
plaintiffs were employees in the public sector, their speech is
not protected since it did not talk about a public concern issue.

6. The argument that was never adduced and would indeed be a
reasonable argument was that disclosure by a member of a
group of his password meant that they had waived their right of
privacy under the act. Further, the defendants were entitled to
protect their business interests. This begs the question (what do
you mean by begs is that the right word or do you mean brings)
does the right to privacy outweigh the right of the owner of a
business to protect his interests? it is my contention that this is
not the case.
Furthermore, they pointed out the undisputed fact that most of
the posts in the chat group included derogatory remarks on both
the management and the customers in reference to drug abuse
which is a bad thing for them to do. As for the invasion of
privacy, which was among the counts on the restaurant, the
defendant argued that the plaintiffs failed to identify public
policy source, which underlie the claim. Besides that, it was not
yet established whether or not St. Jean voluntarily provided
authorization for the defendant to gain accesses to the group
information. For the count of violation of common law tort, the
defendants argued that St. Jean authorized the viewing of the
website since she was an authorized user of the group chat.
Besides that most of the information on the group was public
hence there was no privacy intrusion (Clarkson, 2)
My position is fair and equitable as it enables the owners of
businesses to do everything within their power to ensure that
the businesses prosper. This includes not limiting their power to
protect their business interest, it is within public interest that
owners of business should not be too tied up by statutory
provisions as to render them unable to protect (is this correct)
their business privacy or reputation where the need be.
The biblical position is that employees shall be loyal to their
‘masters’ and that they should not do anything detrimental to
their employers business interests. Keeping a group that its
work it to critic the work place is not only against the biblical

7. teachings but also unethical in employment set up. The court
should therefore find merit in the arguments by the defendants.
(you did not have to do this part as I mentioned in the
instructions also where are the issues in this case).
References
Keyishian v. Board of Regents of University of State of NY,
345 F.2d 236 (2d Cir. 1965).
Clarkson, K. W., Miller, R., & Cross, F. (2014). Business law:
Text and cases.
Miller, R. L. R., & Cross, F. (2014). The legal environment of
business.
Running Head: BUSINESS LAW
1
BUSINESS LAW
2
Business Law
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
Introduction
Senators Richard Blumenthal and Charles Schumer in 2012 sent
letters to the justice department and Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission urging them to conduct federal

8. investigations into the legality of requiring job applicants to
divulge their passwords and usernames for email websites and
social networking as a requirement to get hired (Miller, 2014).
The reports, which indicated that employers in the country
demanded private information among applicants of job as part
of the process of the interview is what prompted the letters.
Social media provides platforms which are very useful for
employers and job applicants to interact. At times they are used
as a means through which employers can discover the
unfavorable materials which can make prospects of employment
fatal. Thus the accessibility and prevalence of social media have
made online background checks a common practice among
prospective employees.
In Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, the plaintiff Pietrylo
accused the employer of accessing a MySpace chat group that
the plaintiff maintained during his non-working hours. The
issue of the case was that the restaurant through one of the
employees in the group managed to gain access of the chat
group whereby the manager shared the information to the
regional manger which led to two employees being fired. The
two employees them resulted to sue the company for the
violation of the SCA Act and the New Jersey Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Control Act (Clarkson, 2014).
The rule of law under SCA Act addresses compelled and
voluntary disclosure of stored electronic and wire
communications and transactional records held by a third party
internet service provider. This means that all their information
should be kept private and no one should access their protected
information without their consent. The defendants’ argument
was that since St. Jean who is said to have reported the
existence of the group to the Hillstone manager was an
authorized user, and then there is no liability under the statutes
based on the exception (Miller, 2014). Besides that, in the
freedom of speech part, the defendant also argued that the
company was a private employer not a state actor and so the
constitutional obligations can only be directed at state action. In

9. addition to that, they argued that even if the plaintiffs were
employees in the public sector, their speech is not protected
since it did not talk about a public concern issue. The defendant
hence suggested that occasional reference to minimum wages
was not sufficient grounds to show that the speech the plaintiffs
exercised in the chat group was a matter of public concern.
Furthermore, they pointed out the undisputed fact that most of
the posts in the chat group included derogatory remarks on both
the management and the customers in reference to drug abuse
which is a bad thing for them to do. As for the invasion of
privacy which was among the counts on the restaurant, the
defendant argued that the plaintiffs failed to identify public
policy source which underlie the claim. Besides that, it was not
yet established whether or not St. Jean voluntarily provided
authorization for the defendant to gain accesses to the group
information. For the count of violation of common law tort, the
defendants argued that St. Jean authorized the viewing of the
website since she was an authorized user of the group chat.
Besides that most of the information on the group was public
hence there was no privacy intrusion (Clarkson, 2014).
References
Clarkson, K. W., Miller, R., & Cross, F. (2014). Business law:
Text and cases.
Miller, R. L. R., & Cross, F. (2014). The legal environment of
business.