CIPP-US practice question 11 of 25

SCENARIO Please use the following to answer the next QUESTION: Larry has become increasingly dissatisfied with his telemarketing position at…

Full set: 195 questions
SCENARIO Please use the following to answer the next QUESTION: Larry has become increasingly dissatisfied with his telemarketing position at SunriseLynx, and particularly with his supervisor, Evan. Just last week, he overheard Evan mocking the state’s Do Not Call list, as well as the people on it. “If they were really serious about not being bothered,” Evan said, “They’d be on the national DNC list. That’s the only one we’re required to follow. At SunriseLynx, we call until they ask us not to.” Bizarrely, Evan requires telemarketers to keep records of recipients who ask them to call “another time.” This, to Larry, is a clear indication that they don’t want to be called at all. Evan doesn’t see it that way. Larry believes that Evan’s arrogance also affects the way he treats employees. The U.S. Constitution protects American workers, and Larry believes that the rights of those at SunriseLynx are violated regularly. At first Evan seemed friendly, even connecting with employees on social medi a. However, following Evan’s political posts, it became clear to Larry that employees with similar affiliations were the only ones offered promotions. Further, Larry occasionally has packages containing personal-use items mailed to work. Several times, these have come to him already opened, even though this name was clearly marked. Larry thinks the opening of personal mail is common at SunriseLynx, and that Fourth Amendment rights are being trampled under Evan’s leadership. Larry has also been dismayed to overhear discussions about his coworker, Sadie. Telemarketing calls are regularly recorded for quality assurance, and although Sadie is always professional during business, her personal conversations sometimes contain sexual comments. This too is something Larry has heard Evan laughing about. When he mentioned this to a coworker, his concern was met with a shrug. It was the coworker’s belief that employees agreed to be monitored when they signed on. Although personal devices are left alone, phone calls, emails and browsing histories are all subject to surveillance. In fact, Larry knows of one case in which an employee was fired after an undercover investigation by an outside firm turned up evidence of misconduct. Although the employee may have stolen from the company, Evan could have simply contacted the authorities when he first suspected something amiss. Larry wants to take action, but is uncertain how to proceed. In what area does Larry have a misconception about private-sector employee rights?
Answer options
A: The applicability of federal law Correct answer
B: The enforceability of local law
C: The strict nature of state law
D: The definition of tort law
Correct Answer:
A. The applicability of federal law
Explanation

Larry's misconception is about the applicability of federal law, specifically the U.S. Constitution, to his private-sector workplace. He believes his Fourth Amendment rights are being violated by his employer, SunriseLynx, opening his personal mail. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by government actors. This protection does not generally extend to the actions of private entities, such as private-sector employers. This legal principle is known as the "state action doctrine." While other laws or tort claims (like intrusion upon seclusion) might apply to the employer's actions, Larry's reliance on the Fourth Amendment in this context is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Why Incorrect

B. Larry's concern about the state Do Not Call list is likely valid, as Evan is incorrectly dismissing it. This is not Larry's misconception.
C. Larry is not misinterpreting state law; he correctly believes the state DNC list should be followed. His supervisor, Evan, is the one misinterpreting it.
D. The scenario does not indicate Larry has a misconception about tort law; his specific stated concern is about the Fourth Amendment, which is constitutional law.

References

1. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921). This Supreme Court case established that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies only to governmental action, not to the conduct of private individuals or entities.

2. Chemerinsky, E. (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (6th ed.). Wolters Kluwer. Chapter 6, Section 6.4, "The State Action Doctrine," explains in detail that the Constitution's protections of individual liberties apply only to the government.

3. Sajadi, S. (2012). Private Searches, Public Functions: The Fourth Amendment and Private Employer Drug Testing. Washington University Law Review, 90(1), 275-316. This article discusses the state action doctrine in the specific context of private employment, confirming the Fourth Amendment's general inapplicability. (Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/lawlawreview/vol90/iss1/5)

Scroll to Top