1073 users online (224 members and 849 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In heels
    Posts
    27,885

    IL - Greg Schaffter for cyberstalking, Schaumburg, 2004

    Nicole Christopoulos took her malfunctioning computer to Best Buy in hopes of getting it repaired.

    And while the man behind the counter accessed her hard drive, it wasn't solely to repair a problem.

    Instead, Greg Schaffter jotted down personal information stored on the Arlington Heights woman's computer and within days, she began receiving harassing messages.

    E-mails and phone calls, explicit photos and threats against her family, with specific names and addresses, began arriving.

    In March, Schaffter was sentenced to three years in prison for cyberstalking after he admitted he used his computer technician job for personal means.

    This week, Christopoulos filed suit against Best Buy, demanding that it take responsibility for the actions of its former employee.


    http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/...bestbuy19.html

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,641
    This woman has every right to be angry, but I do not see how Best Buy can be held responsible. She sees big bucks and it taking advantage of the situation, IMO.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,705
    Their employee ... They are reponsible.


    SHe was entitled to some expectation of privacy.. That is why many would go to Best buy rather then some small computer repair co.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    11,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Cypros
    This woman has every right to be angry, but I do not see how Best Buy can be held responsible. She sees big bucks and it taking advantage of the situation, IMO.

    That really isn't fair. Why doesn't she sue the guy who did it? I don't see how the company could have known what the creep was doing. I can see cases like a school teacher or someone working at a school...he molests a child..and then the parents find out that the school didn't even do a criminal background check on the pervert...that makes sense to me because it would be neglect on the school's part but I don't see how the company can be held responsible here. JMO.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,681
    Employers are responsible in the conduct of their employees, especially when the informtation that he obtained was from his work.

    Sh

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,902
    They may not be liable. It depends on a lot of different things. Did she make them aware of what was going on? Did he have any sort of criminal record that they should have checked out knowing that he would be privy to its customer's private information? Once they knew he was doing this activity, did they assist LE in the investigation, making their records available, etc.?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In heels
    Posts
    27,885
    I don't understand why she is suing Best Buy if they cooperated in the investigation and the guy went to jail. Case is over, he was caught, prosecuted and went to jail - justice is served.

    Her suing is all about $$$$$$ IMO

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    26,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Casshew
    I don't understand why she is suing Best Buy if they cooperated in the investigation and the guy went to jail. Case is over, he was caught, prosecuted and went to jail - justice is served.

    Her suing is all about $$$$$$ IMO

    She'll have to prove that they "knew or should have known" that he was using their customers' information for these crimes.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,681
    There was no way the victim could have infomred Best Buy, she did not know who was stalking her. But because she brough in her computer into their company, their employee used his position to obain personal information from her, he then used this personal information (that he obtained in the course of his work, his position at Best Buy, and on the premises of Best Buy.

    A company is held responsible for the conduct of their employees........especially when it was all "done within the course of his employment duties".

    So there was no way for the victim to know who was stalking her, why, how this person go the personal information etc.

    Therefore especially when in Cyberspace.......

    She was a normal consumer, who brought her computer into a "name brand" national store, and then the result was that she was "threatened", cyberstalked, etc.

    You then think that anyone else would bring into their computer to this store is they don't take any responsibility for the conduct of their employee.

    They hired him......and he victimized a "customer"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    354
    I would generally agree that the employer shouldn't be held responsible for an individual employees actions but in the full article it states that he had an extensive criminal history and that several orders of protection had been filed against him. I don't think Best Buy should have let him have access to personal customer info with that kind of criminal history.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbisangel
    That really isn't fair. Why doesn't she sue the guy who did it? I don't see how the company could have known what the creep was doing. I can see cases like a school teacher or someone working at a school...he molests a child..and then the parents find out that the school didn't even do a criminal background check on the pervert...that makes sense to me because it would be neglect on the school's part but I don't see how the company can be held responsible here. JMO.
    If there had been previous complaints re this employee and/or a previous arrest, this woman has every right to file suit.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Casshew
    I don't understand why she is suing Best Buy if they cooperated in the investigation and the guy went to jail. Case is over, he was caught, prosecuted and went to jail - justice is served.

    Her suing is all about $$$$$$ IMO
    Turns out they hired a known felon with a extensive history of harrassing/stalking women. Best Buys better reach for their wallets now, and save themselves some court fees.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,681
    But her lawsuit, which seeks unspecified compensation, says Best Buy should never have employed Schaffter, and especially should not have allowed him access to a customer's personal information.

    That's because Schaffter has a lengthy criminal history, with arrests for deceptive practices and forgery, and several orders of protection were filed against him.

    You can't take a computer into a "brand name national store" and then be subjected to an "employees" harassment because you took your business to this "brand name national store".

    www.lawhost.com

    Illinois employers may be held liable for their employees' actions under one (or more) of three separate legal theories: respondeat superior, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring. A working knowledge of the issues driving these theories will enable you to minimize your business' exposure to liability.

    RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR - This would apply.
    1)Under this doctrine, an employer may be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of an employee who was acting within the scope of his or her employment. The key issue here is what conduct falls within the "scope" of employment. An employee's conduct is covered if it is of the kind he or she is employed to perform, occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits of the employment, and is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.

    NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT - This again would apply.........

    2)Whether the employee involved was acting within the scope of employment is not a concern in a negligent entrustment case. The employer's negligent act of entrustment, not the scope of employment, forms the basis of the tort.

    NEGLIGENT HIRING - This is a major factor, if Best Buy did or did not do an employment check, it does not matter, if they did not, they should have, and if they did and found out his criminal record, they should not have hired him, especially when there were protection orders against me in the past.

    3)Under this theory, an employer may be held liable for the negligent or intentional tort of an employee on the premise that it breached a duty to use due care in selecting and retaining only safe and competent employees.
    Unlike respondeat superior (and similar to negligent entrustment), negligent hiring is not a true form of vicarious liability, that is, liability does not stem solely from the conduct of another.

    While the employee's conduct is, of course, quite material, the focus of a negligent hiring action is the independent act of negligence committed by the employer, i.e., the employer's failure to use due care when hiring the employee. Thus, whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment is not directly relevant and an employer may be held liable for negligent hiring even if the employee's wrongful conduct occurred outside the scope of his or her employment.


    The above are legal principals, so anyone thinking of saying: But this is one particular state, legal principals apply universally.



Similar Threads

  1. Online 'addiction' leads to cyberstalking, says expert
    By shadowraiths in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-22-2015, 02:03 AM
  2. Whistle blowing equates to cyberstalking?
    By Elphaba in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-06-2011, 11:31 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-18-2010, 04:43 PM
  4. John Mark Karr accused of cyberstalking
    By spamelope in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2010, 02:41 AM

Tags for this Thread