The Center for Information Technology & Privacy Law
2012 Requests for Interpretation
Did Peters continue working in the office from the time the photos were sent to the company and his termination? (Record indicates he was suspended from duties but also that he was excluded from company-related social events.)
Answer: On the record page 7, “During this time period” refers to the time period up until his suspension.
How were the photos taken inside Peters home by Lost & Found described in the HR report? Should we assume the descriptions implied his sexual orientation? Can we assume the pictures of Peters kissing his partner, shaking hands with gay activist and rainbow flags were all mentioned?
Answer: Consult the Record, pages 6 and 7.
Was Peters suspended with or without pay?
Answer: Teams should work on the assumption that Peters was suspended with pay.
Was L. Walker suspended from the entirety of Fall 2009 – Feb 2010 with pay?
Answer: Consult the Record, page 7.
Was Almonville (city where the previous Timmons’ fundraiser held) part of Peters’ assigned territory?
Answer: Consult the Record, pages 5-6.
Can we assume that Lost & Found software has to be activated by an IT employee, as well as turned off by one?
Does Peters also have an office at the company headquarters (or another office building) in addition to his "home office?"
Should we assume anything about whether the interior of Peters' home office could be seen from outside his home?
Answer: Consult the Record, page 6.
Is authority from certain states or federal circuits more persuasive than authority from other jurisdictions? The main reason I ask is due to the range in interpretation given to the different elements for the intrusion upon seclusion claim in various jurisdictions.
Answer: Consult the Record, page 8, and paragraph 3.
Page 6 of the record appears to be inconsistent regarding when Peters called and received his lost laptop. It says that the Hotel called the morning after he first reported the laptop missing and told Peters they would send the laptop overnight. The same 2 paragraph claims Peters received the laptop that same morning. Can you please clarify the timeline of when the Hotel contacted Peters and when Peters received the laptop?
Answer: Teams should interpret the facts in the Record as follows: The hotel called Peters the morning he arrived home to inform him they found the laptop the evening before and immediately sent it out so that it would arrive the next morning, being the morning the hotel called him.
Page 7 of the record starts with "shortly after this incident..." Which incident is this referring to? It could be the blundered campaign event, Peters losing his laptop, Peters retrieving his laptop, or the Lost and Found software sending information to O'Plenty Enterprises' HR department. Can you please clarify this timeline?
Answer: The “incident” refers to the campaign event.
Page 6 discusses O'Plenty Enterprises' policy of forwarding the Lost and Found software reports to Mr. O'Plenty. Can you clarify how this transfer is carried out? Is it automatically forwarded by the Lost and Found software? Does HR send the information to him?
Answer: Consult the Record, page 6.
The last sentence on page 12 of the Record states, "Respondent also asserts that whether the termination was pretextual is an issue of fact for the jury to resolve." Is this sentence supposed to say Petitioner asserts this is an issue for a jury to decide?
Answer: Yes, you are correct. We apologize for the error. The last sentence on page 12 should read: “Finally, Peters asserts that whether the termination was pretextual is an issue of fact for the jury to resolve.”