@estang said:
The question becomes a legal one. Who had a responsibility to keep those emails protected? If it were the NFL, does the mismanagement (leaking) of the emails warrant financial damages by Gruden?
Proving who exactly leaked them will be very difficult but does it matter? I would imagine the account that they came from matters. If Gruden was an NFL employee or an employee of an NFL team, then having them leaked could matter. However, if he was using an ESPN email or a personal email, I'm not sure the NFL has any responsibility to protect that information.
Goodell is a lawyer. The NFL employs a lot of smart lawyers. I would find it hard to believe Gruden wins his lawsuit or will ever know what happened.
At the end of the day, someone took away from Gruden what really matters. Even if he were to collect some monetary damages, it won't replace what was taken away from him. He's screwed.
If you send an email to someone else in most cases they are free to do whatever they wish with it (there of course exceptions such as communications with your lawyer) so I don’t think anyone had a responsibility to keep those emails secret. My understanding is that he was not an NFL employee at the time but even if he was I don’t think that changes anything. You generally have no expectation of privacy in emails sent using your employer’s property. If Gruden didn’t want people to see his stupid racist opinions he shouldn’t have put them in print and sent them to other people. He has no one to blame but himself.
I agree with this for the most part, typing anything out in todays world is not a smart play if you don’t want anyone but the recipient to ever see it that is.
I do believe that a private correspondence should hold no legal legs though, a private conversation is not malicious behavior in my opinion
I think when you use slurs and denigrate groups of people it is malicious even if it is a private conversation. Malicious means intending to do harm. Gruden was clearly intending to harm the reputation or perception off the people he was talking about even if his audience was limited to a few people. Not sure what the term “legal legs” is supposed to mean but there was no action by a court or law enforcement here. The raiders were not legally required to fire him because of those emails. In most cases employers can fire you for any reason or no reason at all. Gruden’s racist, homophobic and mysoginistic emails were made public and so the raiders had to decide wether the wanted to keep someone like that as the face of their franchise. If you were a public face of your company and got in the news for saying or doing repulsive things I don’t think you would be surprised if your company fires you.
Legal legs means that if and when this goes to court a private email shouldn’t be held against you but that’s just my opinion as I stated, unlike you I don’t say things and claim they are true statements without knowing what I’m talking about.
Again will you please inform is what your banned handle was?
Comments
Legal legs means that if and when this goes to court a private email shouldn’t be held against you but that’s just my opinion as I stated, unlike you I don’t say things and claim they are true statements without knowing what I’m talking about.
Again will you please inform is what your banned handle was?