IL - Greg Schaffter for cyberstalking, Schaumburg, 2004

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Nicole Christopoulos took her malfunctioning computer to Best Buy in hopes of getting it repaired.[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]And while the man behind the counter accessed her hard drive, it wasn't solely to repair a problem.[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Instead, Greg Schaffter jotted down personal information stored on the Arlington Heights woman's computer and within days, she began receiving harassing messages.[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]E-mails and phone calls, explicit photos and threats against her family, with specific names and addresses, began arriving.[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]In March, Schaffter was sentenced to three years in prison for cyberstalking after he admitted he used his computer technician job for personal means.[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]This week, Christopoulos filed suit against Best Buy, demanding that it take responsibility for the actions of its former employee.
[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-bestbuy19.html
[/font]

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.

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.

Cypros said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Employers are responsible in the conduct of their employees, especially when the informtation that he obtained was from his work.

Sh

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.?

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

Casshew said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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"

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.

Bobbisangel said:

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.

Click to expand...

If there had been previous complaints re this employee and/or a previous arrest, this woman has every right to file suit.

Casshew said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.