Whistleblowing. Gabor was a car salesperson for Whitt Automotive Group. Whit ask
ID: 328687 • Letter: W
Question
Whistleblowing. Gabor was a car salesperson for Whitt Automotive Group. Whit asked Gabor to allow some of his phone conversations with "customers" to be recorded. The "customers" were actually consultants hired by Whitt to conduct a sales training program. Gabor refused to consent. He was eventually fired for his "negative attitude." Gabor filed a suit in a California state court against Whitt. He cited a state statute related to secret telephone calls and alleged in part that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy. Will the court agree? Please research and summarize any California law related to Whitt’s activity and discuss fully.
Explanation / Answer
We need to analyze first the prevailing laws regarding telephone tapping in California after which we can decide on whether the court will agree to the suite.
It is to be noted that under the California Penal Code 631 PC it is defined as a crime for people who are not a law enforcement officers to tap someone’s phone without permission.
It is applicable to the said case where Gabor is a commoner working as a sales person, hence his practice of telephone tapping would be treated as an unlawful doing and would have attracted penalty under the law.
California's law against wiretapping, Penal Code 631 PC, lists the activities that would constitute illegal wiretapping. These are:
Even tapping cell phone calls are an unlawful exercise under Penal Code sections 632.5 and 632.6 PC. If anyone intercept a call between two cell phones, two cordless phones, a cell or cordless phone and a landline phone, OR a cell phone and a cordless phone, with criminal intent and without the consent of both parties to the call then such people will face the same penalties as would be faced for tapping a regular phone line.
Hence, the court would certainly agree that the instructions to Gabor by Wirt was to practice an unlawful crime and hence his dismissal on such grounds is against the public policy. Also Wirt would have to answer on his arrangements with the consultants and the situation that made him plan a phone tapping arrangement as instructed to Gabor.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.