Geek Squad gets sued: employee peeks at woman in shower

[Bokishi]

lol wtf

 

http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_101211540.html

[Sand]

I don't see how a company is responsible for the lewd actions of one of its employees. The employee did the deed, not the company.

[Enoch]

I don't see how a company is responsible for the lewd actions of one of its employees. The employee did the deed, not the company.

Respondeat superior generally holds that employers are liable for the non-intentional torts of their employees, if they are done within the course of the employment. The charges filed were "fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligent hiring, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress." The first three are clearly directed primarily at Best Buy & Geek Squad. The latter two, as intentional torts, are probably directed at the employee alone, although the "negligent hiring" charge, if proven, may put the employers on the hook even for the intentional actions.

[Sand]

That is just silly. The only way I see an employer is to be held responsible in this matter is if the employer told the guy to do this.

[Gfted1]

How the hell did he do it with a cell phone? As far as I know, you cant activate the video function of the phone remotely so he had to leave it there with the video running, right? If so, phone video duration capability is at max, what, 30 seconds? So what did he do, go into the bathroom, set it up and turn it on at exactly the instant she was entering the bathroom?

[Enoch]

That is just silly. The only way I see an employer is to be held responsible in this matter is if the employer told the guy to do this.

I don't know California law specifically, but I'm guessing that the theory of the suit is that BB & GS promised (expressly or implicitly) that their repair guy was a professional who the customer could safely let into her home without fear that he would do anything untoward.

[Volourn]

It's simple.

 

They can get more money from the company then from the individual.

 

And, the company will likely wnat to settle to limit the 'bad publicity'.

 

I'm with Sand. Unles sit cna be proven that the company ordered him to do this; they shouldn't be liable.

 

Period.

[theslug]

I hope geek squad burns for this. They are so completely ridiculous I can't stand it. Best buy is just as worse, freakin hate them. Over charge everything, I mean yeah some people are really stupid and should get over charged for stupid crap that they do to their computers but I mean to set up a home network for 2 computers, somehow equates into like $170 or something what kind of crap is that.

[Oerwinde]

since when do cell phones have little red lights that show they're recording?

[Fenghuang]

My previous employer (the blind and window place) hired not only illegal immigrants, but since illegals usually can't speak the language well enough to interact with the customers as necessary; he'd also hire known felons since he could pay them less.

 

I found out that one of my coworkers was a pedophile shortly before I quit. Keep in mind that we'd be going into people's houses, largely unsupervised, oftentimes around their kids. My employer knew this, but since nobody else would hire the guy, he could pay him minimum whereas anybody else he had to pay them more.

[LadyCrimson]

If the company knowingly hired someone with a record or something similar, perhaps I'd see it, but otherwise, no ... sounds like an attempt at a mo' money-grab to me.

 

Personally, I'd never take a shower with a work dude (or gal) in the house. I take the shower before they arrive, then sit in an adjacent room reading or whatever.

 

I wouldn't mind knowing how the person's sister got a hold of the man's phone to take the chip out in the first place.

[metadigital]

How the hell did he do it with a cell phone? As far as I know, you cant activate the video function of the phone remotely so he had to leave it there with the video running, right? If so, phone video duration capability is at max, what, 30 seconds? So what did he do, go into the bathroom, set it up and turn it on at exactly the instant she was entering the bathroom?

Bluetooth.

[rokor]

im sorry....but that was just stupid...theres no way lol...

[Oerwinde]

I demand to see the video. Otherwise I call shenanigans.

[Calax]

Well has anyone else seen the footage?

 

Or for that matter could they have faked the footage for monetary purposes?

[Fenghuang]

P.S. Calax don't ever hire Blind Magic to do any work. Srsly. Pedos.

[Oerwinde]

Well has anyone else seen the footage?

 

Or for that matter could they have faked the footage for monetary purposes?

 

Its easily faked. If all they had is the memory chip, its probably very hard to prove its from his phone. This case would be very easy for Best Buy to win, but they'll likely just settle.

[Enoch]

Well has anyone else seen the footage?

 

Or for that matter could they have faked the footage for monetary purposes?

 

Its easily faked. If all they had is the memory chip, its probably very hard to prove its from his phone. This case would be very easy for Best Buy to win, but they'll likely just settle.

Don't forget that this isn't a criminal case-- the plaintiffs do not have to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," they just have to prove that it's more likely than not that the plaintiff is liable. And juries do not like the idea of repairmen planting devices to spy on their children. It may not be as easy as you think.

[Oerwinde]

Its easily faked. If all they had is the memory chip, its probably very hard to prove its from his phone. This case would be very easy for Best Buy to win, but they'll likely just settle.

Don't forget that this isn't a criminal case-- the plaintiffs do not have to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," they just have to prove that it's more likely than not that the plaintiff is liable. And juries do not like the idea of repairmen planting devices to spy on their children. It may not be as easy as you think.

 

In a civil case its usually the defendant's choice on whether theres a jury or not, so if it did go to court they could just have a judge, who would be less likely to be swayed by their emotions than a jury.

[Enoch]

Its easily faked. If all they had is the memory chip, its probably very hard to prove its from his phone. This case would be very easy for Best Buy to win, but they'll likely just settle.

Don't forget that this isn't a criminal case-- the plaintiffs do not have to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," they just have to prove that it's more likely than not that the plaintiff is liable. And juries do not like the idea of repairmen planting devices to spy on their children. It may not be as easy as you think.

 

In a civil case its usually the defendant's choice on whether theres a jury or not, so if it did go to court they could just have a judge, who would be less likely to be swayed by their emotions than a jury.

The details depend on state rules, but it is almost always the case that either side can demand that a jury hear the case, provided that certain other criteria (usually a minimum amount in controversy) are met. The jury demand form can usually be attached to either of the initial pleadings in the case (the plaintiff's complaint or the defendant's answer).

[Walsingham]

My previous employer (the blind and window place) hired not only illegal immigrants, but since illegals usually can't speak the language well enough to interact with the customers as necessary; he'd also hire known felons since he could pay them less.

 

I found out that one of my coworkers was a pedophile shortly before I quit. Keep in mind that we'd be going into people's houses, largely unsupervised, oftentimes around their kids. My employer knew this, but since nobody else would hire the guy, he could pay him minimum whereas anybody else he had to pay them more.

 

You realise you could have had a quiet word with a journalist about this? That's just revolting.

 

As for the employee liability, the wole way a company works is that you are accountable for your employees' behaviour while on the job. This is why you have a code of conduct. The flip side, as we kind of see above is where the phone and gas companies hire crack-addled parolees to do your housework. Then deny its anything to do with them if your stuff goes astray.

 

This is one more reason why selection of personnel is the unassailable primary thing you should look at in any organisation.

[Diamond]

Alright, when do we get the footage in question on YouTube?

[Walsingham]

Alright, when do we get the footage in question on YouTube?

 

Nothing like partaking in the violation of someone's privacy to set you up for the day?

[Calax]

Alright, when do we get the footage in question on YouTube?

 

Nothing like partaking in the violation of someone's privacy to set you up for the day?

if they violated their own privacy to pump a business for money I'd watch.

 

On the subject of hirings, From what I can tell the hirings take place with minimal backround checks. And generally the employer will try to do everything he can to save money (excons and illegals)

 

I used to work at a cash register with a vietnamese gang member who was convicted of armed Robbery.

[Walsingham]

Alright, when do we get the footage in question on YouTube?

 

Nothing like partaking in the violation of someone's privacy to set you up for the day?

if they violated their own privacy to pump a business for money I'd watch.

 

On the subject of hirings, From what I can tell the hirings take place with minimal backround checks. And generally the employer will try to do everything he can to save money (excons and illegals)

 

I used to work at a cash register with a vietnamese gang member who was convicted of armed Robbery.

 

I don't think it was done with law suits in mind. Have I misunderstood?

 

My question would be whether you would regard a bank employee who steals your cash from your accounts to be a problem for just you or for the bank.