Judges Rule Google Search by Employer Not Illegal 185
An anonymous reader passed us a link to an Ars Technica article about a failed lawsuit over a Google search. A federal circuit court of appeals has upheld the original ruling against David Mullins, who claimed that Googling his name constituted ex parte communications prior to firing him. "Through a series of events, Mullins' employer found that he had misused his government vehicle and government funds for his own purposes — such as sleeping in his car and falsifying hotel documents to receive reimbursements, withdrawing unauthorized amounts of cash from the company card, and traveling to destinations sometimes hundreds of miles away from where he was supposed to be ... Mullins' supervisor provided a 23-page document listing 102 separate instances of misconduct. Mullins took issue with a Google search that Capell performed just before authorizing his firing. During this Google search, Capell found that Mullins had been fired from his previous job at the Smithsonian Institution and had been removed from Federal Service by the Air Force."
Re:Does that mean (Score:5, Funny)
Re:it wasn't (Score:3, Funny)
Re:it wasn't (Score:2, Funny)
Re:And yet... (Score:3, Funny)
That's how to get fired (Score:5, Funny)
That's shocking. What sort of Draconian employment termination policies are in action here? Removed from federal service by the air force? Usually, I'd just have a quiet word to let the employee know their services are no longer required.
"Security, escort Mullins from the office. Yes, of course I mean with the F-16s..."
Re:Does that mean (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does that mean (Score:5, Funny)
Sordid: dirty, immoral."
Right, he sorted by professional, then personal past. Personally I would have sorted by good and evil, but everybody reads data differently.
Re:Does that mean (Score:2, Funny)
According to the story, his name was David Mullins. So I guess, he was in fact a scumbag!
Re:Does that mean (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I remember that incident..... (Score:3, Funny)