| 1. |
California statutes do not directly address an employer’s right to regulate employees’ conduct during nonworking hours. |
True |
False |
| 2. |
Some courts have held that an employer’s written warning to a supervisor that dating an employee on the job is prohibited may trump the supervisor’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the conduct. |
True |
False |
| 3. |
California courts have recognized that community norms may play a role in an employee’s expectation of privacy in the workplace. |
True |
False |
| 4. |
California’s statutory provisions banning workplace discrimination have been broadly interpreted to create a public policy prohibiting employers from taking adverse action against employees based on nonwork behavior. |
True |
False |
| 5. |
Sexual harassment, conflicts of interest, and appearances of favoritism all can have negative effects on office productivity that courts may deem to be a legitimate interest justifying some regulation of workplace behavior. |
True |
False |
| 6. |
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that consenting adults’ rights to engage in private sexual behavior is constitutionally protected. |
True |
False |
| 7. |
Several California courts have held that firing employees because of whom they date or marry involves a less-serious invasion of privacy than was involved in <i>Lawrence v. Texas</i>, which was based on the right to have consensual sex. |
True |
False |
| 8. |
Like most other states, California recognizes constitutional claims only in cases involving state action. |
True |
False |
| 9. |
Generally, courts have assumed that the right to participate in a workplace romance is a legally protected privacy interest under the principles set forth in <i>Lawrence</i>. |
True |
False |
| 10. |
Under present California law, an employee who receives advance notice that fraternization on the job is prohibited cannot invoke a protected right to privacy in the conduct. |
True |
False |
| 11. |
A plaintiff’s expectation of privacy is irrelevant in determining whether a protected privacy right exists. |
True |
False |
| 12. |
An employee who can prove a reasonable expectation of privacy in a romantic relationship in the workplace essentially has a prima facie case for recovering on a charge of an employer’s invasion of privacy. |
True |
False |
| 13. |
Currently, the most difficult hurdle for employees to overcome in establishing a claim for a constitutional invasion of privacy is that the conduct involved a serious rather than a de minimis invasion of privacy. |
True |
False |
| 14. |
One foolproof way for employers to avoid all liability for privacy invasion claims based on their regulation of workplace romances is to write and enforce a strict antifraternization policy. |
True |
False |
| 15. |
At least one California court of appeal has held that community norms do not support a supervisor’s romantic involvement with employees he or she supervises. |
True |
False |
| 16. |
In <i>Barbee v. Household Automative Finance Corp.</i>, a California appellate court inferred that employees have a right to pursue a sexual relationship at work. |
True |
False |
| 17. |
The decision in <i>Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Ass’n</i>, holding that an employee was legally fired after telling her employer that she intended to marry a convicted felon, was based on an analysis of right to marry protections rather than right to workplace privacy protections. |
True |
False |
| 18. |
Though the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in <i>Lawrence</i> gives specific protections to adults who wish to engage in private consensual sex, it has no legal ramifications for the right to conduct romances in the workplace setting. |
True |
False |
| 19. |
To establish a constitutional invasion of privacy claim in California, a plaintiff must prove that there is a legally protected privacy interest, a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a serious invasion of privacy. |
True |
False |
| 20. |
The California Supreme Court recently elucidated the standard of review in employee privacy cases, holding that to be protected a privacy invasion need only be rationally related to a compelling employer or state interest. |
True |
False |