PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT

The purpose of this writing exercise is to acquaint students with the remarkable potential for finding information on the Internet for individuals and business persons confronted with legal and ethical problems.  There are literally thousands of Web Sites which you can currently access on the Internet placed on-line by federal, state and local governments, as well as by consumer and other special interest groups, such as Public Interest Research Groups and law firms. Although each site is unique, many Web Sites share common characteristics, such as "News Releases," "Commission Actions," "Consumer Publications," etc. Some, such as the Department of Labor (DOL) are even interactive, allowing the inquirer to ask specific questions of a DOL employee. Many have hyperlinks designed to integrate your search with other useful sites. Most are also very easy to find. For example, the Department of Labor's Web Site is http:\\www.dol.gov. In my Website, there is also a hyperlink to a number of source materials.

YOUR ASSIGNMENT

Your assignment is to first come up with a legal problem. This may be an actual legal problem that you have or once had, or one that a friend or relative has had. For example, say your older sister was in the process of adopting a child, but her employer would not allow her time off for meetings with social workers, lawyers etc. This sibling might be allowed time off under the Family Medical and Leave Act (FMLA) which is administered by the Department of Labor (DOL.) You may wish to go to the DOL's Web Site to see what it may offer her to begin understanding and possibly solving her legal problem. If you did not know about the FMLA, you could also have initiated your search by simply putting in words like "leave," "time off," "adoption" etc. which may also lead you to the relevant law. If you or those you know have never had a legal problem (you have indeed had a charmed life if this is the case), then use a hypothetical legal problem. 

Once you have decided on a legal problem, your next step will be to "surf" the Web looking for Web Site(s) that may help you solve your problem. That is, Web Sites which offer help for those with legal and/or ethical problems in their personal lives or businesses.  When you have found one which you find interesting,  write a short paper explaining how this Web Site has helped you in getting started in solving your legal problem. Include the URL in your paper. Also discuss whether you think this Web Site may be helpful to individuals and business persons as a resource in the future. 

The clearest and most efficient manner of presenting your paper is to use the so-called IRAC method. I=Issue; R=Rule; A=Application and C=Conclusion. This means that once you have come up with your legal problem, frame the issue. Then use the Internet to find the rule of law. The Internet information can also help you in when you apply the law to your facts. Then make your conclusion. The Sample Brief by a former student the: "STAINED APRONS AND CHEAP TIPPERS AT THE CRIMSON CRUSTACEAN SEAFOOD RESTAURANT" is a good example of the proper use of the IRAC method.

TEAM PROJECT

The term paper will be a group project.  Groups of three will complete and submit one paper per group.  Students will be allowed two weeks for those who wish to form groups to do so.  After this period, I will assign remaining students to groups.  Generally more, nor fewer, than three students will constitute a group, although such groups may have to be made because of drops, adds etc.. 

All students in each team will receive the same grade for the paper.  However, since it occasionally happens that one student does little or no work, and it violates the ethical principle of fairness and justice for that student to receive the same grade as those who did the work, there will be an “escape valve.”

On the day when the papers are due, each student will have the option of handing in to the instructor a brief explanation indicating whether any of the students in the group should receive a lower grade than the other students, and if so, why.  Since the instructor cannot observe the process of preparing the finished product, this is the only way to know if someone is unfairly receiving a higher grade for the work of their project partners.

The paper should be 3 to 5 pages, typed and double-spaced with reasonable margins.

CAUTION WHEN EVALUATING RESULTS

It should be noted that the complexity of many, if not most, legal problems is such that a thorough legal analysis is not possible. In fact, at this point in your education, you do not have the skills to do such an analysis. However, this exercise should enable you to gain a sufficient amount of understanding of your problem so that if you would have to consult an attorney, you would be better informed and thus able to actively take part in your case.

QUESTIONS

If you have questions on how to surf the web, ideas on legal problems etc. feel free to consult with the instructor. The instructor also has samples of papers written in the past, as well as a very well-written one presented below, that you may look at for guidance.

DUE DATES

Your topic proposal is due on Monday,  March 19, 2007 (a one or more sentence proposal is sufficient and you may email me your proposals. Please include all names of persons on the team). Your paper is due on Wednesday May 2, 2007.

During college and for several years after college, my sister, Karen, waitressed in a popular, high volume, seafood chain restaurant. However, the years of degrading treatment by often uneducated and poorly trained restaurant managers, coupled with the thankless demands of unappreciative customers, took their toll on her. Karen created a website, The Stained Apron, to vent her frustrations and give voice to her comrades in the service industry. (THE FOREGOING STATES THE LEGAL PROBLEM)

The Stained Apron is a virtual gathering place for disgruntled food servers to commiserate and share stories of poor treatment by their employers and customers.  Much of the humor is at the expense of hapless managers, customers who engage in embarrassing foibles, and celebrities who behave or tip poorly. The site also includes servers' tales of vengeance against their oppressors, such as grotesque sabotage of food served to nasty, cheap tipping customers. The website is considered to be wickedly humorous by some, appalling and offensive to others.

The Apron has received mention in major national and international publications. Although Karen initially basked int he attention and publicity, she began to fear that the site could bring about liability for defamation, and she might have good reason to worry. According to the article Cybersmears: Dealing with defamation on the Net, by Jeffrey Elkin, in Business Law Today, January/February 2000 (http://www.abanet.org/buslaw.html), "the courts have held that laws of defamation undoubtedly apply to false statements made over the internet."  An interesting question, however, is whether the author of the statements, the internet service provider (ISP), or both, are liable for the statements. In recent court cases, plaintiffs have sought to hold the deeper pockets of the ISPs liable.

The site Basic elements of Defamation Law (htp://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation/html) provides a comprehensive outline of the elements of defamation, including definitions, defenses, and methods to reduce liability. Defamation is defined as "anything published or publicly spoken that causes injury to another's good name, reputation, or character." A required component to the tort of defamation is falseness of the statement, and truth is normally an absolute defense against a defamation charge.  Even false and defamatory statements made about public figures are considered privileged--a defense against defamation--if they are made without actual malice, or without knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. (THE FOREGOING IS THE RULE OF LAW)

Basic Element of Defamation Law provides a number of ways that Karen could minimize her exposure to liability for defamation. Due diligence, or a basic investigation to verify the reliability of the source and the information published, is very helpful. This particular area could be troublesome for Karen, since many of the anecdotes on the Apron are submitted by anonymous servers, identified only by email addresses or aliases. One way to establish due diligence might be to require contributors to include a telephone number along with their anecdotes, then place a call to the person before publishing his or her story.

Additionally, the site advises keeping in mind the objectivity or bias of sources providing information. Karen would be wise to remember that angry servers may not always be the most unbiased of sources.  Establishing and following criteria for publishing information helps establish that actions were not reckless, and Karen should list her criteria on the site.  The anonymity the internet provides to contributors hobbles the usefulness of another tactic to avoid liability, which is quoting someone else.

Reporting facts, rather than conclusions of opinion drawn from facts, will also help. For example, rather than stating that "Dennis Rodman is a lout who can't keep his hands off waitresses' breasts whenever he comes to Las Vegas," one might say "Despite Rodman's denial, several witnesses reported observing him grope a cocktail waitress's breast while she served him drinks in a strip casino."

When considering the public figure defense against defamation, one can use the U.S. Supreme Court's guidelines, which Basic Elements of Defamation Law describes as follows:

(1.) Involuntary Public Figure: becomes public figure through no purposeful action of their own, including those who have become especially prominent in the affairs of society.

(2.) Always Public Figures: those who occupy position of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes.

(3.) Public Figures on Specific Issues: those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

Another potential area of liability that Karen was concerned about is invasion of privacy. According to Randall Boese's article "Redefining Privacy? Anti-Paparazzi Legislation and Freedom of the Press" in the Summer 1999 editor on Communications Lawyer (http://www.abanet.org/forums), proposed federal anti-media legislation didn't survive Congress. However, California enacted the nation's first anti-paparazzi law prohibiting physical and constructive invasions of privacy, and other states are considering enacting similar legislation. However, it does not seem likely that Karen's mere reporting on celebrity's bizarre dining habits or tightwad tipping tendencies would run afoul of such privacy laws, which are concerned with a person being photographed or recorded in situations where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. According to the article, "so long as that which is viewed or heard is perceptible to the naked eye or unaided ear, the person seen or heard has no reasonable expectation of privacy in what occurs." (THE FOREGOING IS THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE TO THE FACTS)

Fortunately for Karen her serving days are now behind her. Maintaining The Stained Apron is now a labor of love instead of a tool to maintain sanity by day while slinging heavily fried and breaded seafood at night. If Karen were still waitressing, her largest problem might be a manager at Red Lobster - uh, I mean the Crimson Crustacean, as the Apron slyly refer to the restaurant--stumbling across the site and taking advantage of the company's status as an at-will employer to fire her! (CONCLUSION)