Ok, I don't know how courts work where she's from but in 'Merica the loser has to pay the winner's legal fees as well as whatever ruling was made. And if she can't pay it her credit rating would eventually be destroyed. It just doesn't make sense for a sane individual, especially one demonstrating such a so-called "clever response", to risk losing everything...again, quitting a job in this market??!? There are just too many signs that say "stupid, stupid, stupid".

Whatever, I grow weary of this "argument". If this really happened, then I applaud her for her bravery, but reprimand her for her naivete and brashness. If this didn't happen, then she's smart.

In America, the loser does NOT have to pay the winner's legal fees, barring a few certain circumstances. My girlfriend is a lawyer, is sitting right next to me, and I'll take her word for it.

Sexist? What? I love women! XD

but what's so hard about outing farmville players? Everything they do in farmville shows up on facebook. You don't even need an "office snitch" to tell you that.

And that is entirely untrue. Some of the most famous female comedians don't rely on feminine humor or looks. Wand Sykes, Ellen, Margaret Cho, Whoopie. I was being facetious.

Ah ok, so America has gotten to the point where people can just do stuff or say whatever they want because others are too lazy to do anything about it. Sure.

Anyway, Chive got in touch with the girl and are going to have an interview tomorrow so let's see what she has to say about the whole thing and whether she mentions the company name or not. If you're correct she won't have a problem saying what company it was, right?

Actually, yes. That's not far from the truth. You can go ahead and argue it but I'll take my girlfriend's word for it since she's finished about eight years of schooling, passed the bar, and is now a law clerk for a judge and writes about the law and advises rulings for the judge on a daily basis.

Whether she mentions the company name or not has nothing to do with what we're talking about here and it proves nothing. On both sides of this case, there simply isn't enough relevant fact to do much of anything for or against either other party. What will the boss sue for? You can't sue for speculative damages. Therefore, he has to prove that her email caused him financial harm (ie. line-by-line breakdown of damages, not "I think I've lost clients"). Public embarrassment is not a legitimate reason to sue in the eyes of the court. In her case, she has to prove that he called her a HPOA, which will be incredibly difficult because it's her word versus his and the third party on the phone will probably deny having heard it just to stay out of the mess.

Who wins from a lawsuit stemming from this farce? Short answer, no one.

Why do you think the Enquirer gets away with writing the shit it does? It's just too bloody hard to go after them and prove with a dollar amount the damages that have been wrought.

err?

why would she get sued? for saying his playtime?

didn't you read that it came from a program the guy installed in every computer to monitor internet activity... she just had to print the log to have a safety net against him.He could forge them sure... but that leaves traces... and would be complicated for 30 hours a week's worth of logs (plus he'd have to forge every previous weeks.... if he just deletes that's worse even).

Sure the company could sue her for releasing confidential info... about a guy spending 30 hours a week playing or trading on personal accounts? I don't think so.

and since when is hopa a bad word?

Well then 'Merica is completely ridiculous.

Well at least one damage is quantifiable. The cost of training a new employee, and the loss of production for having a missing employee.

My point with what I said previously is that, she should not be afraid to give the name of the company if this story is true and what you say is true. If the company does exist, and she did this knowing that they couldn't do anything about it, then she must have legal knowledge or support, and so would know that she could name the company. I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to do this kind of thing without knowing what the possible repurcussions would be (and even if she is, she must have talked to some people about it before she did it, who would warn her to be careful). Logically, if the story is true, she can name the company, if it's not, she won't name the company. (Based on what you've said the law allows)

I would think it has more to do with the office people than the public. I would think the office would be really upset to know that the manager screwed around for 30 hours a week, and possibly cause turnover, which is very costly to a company.

I like her.

At Will Employment negates any chance of winning a lawsuit for training a new employee unless a contract was involved and it specified working for a specified time period (and they usually have out clauses). As an employee, she can leave because she doesn't like her bosses' name or because a coworker smells like patchouli or because they play really bad music in the elevators. As an employer, they can fire her for almost any reason that doesn't involve discrimination of some kind (handicap, gender, sexual preference, etc).

My point is that even if she doesn't name the company, it could be for reasons entirely unrelated to a potential lawsuit so it proves nothing.