Reference no: EM133348075
CASE STUDY QUESTION
Ben Ripley reported to work at the Department of Commerce in Washington D.C. He had several job responsibilities. He walked to his mailbox where a white envelop greeted him. It said since he was not vaccinated and had 30 days to comply that he would be terminated. Ben walked to his supervisors office. However, Commerce Secretary April Showers, was conducting a warrantless administrative search on the third floor. This startled several employees who had to submit spot urinalysis checks. There was no mention that the Commerce Department a government agency was also a closely regulated business. Therefore, many employees were indignant about having to submit to the tests. Some employees felt that that they had standing and subsequently filed paperwork to launch a suit.
Further, Assistant Commerce Secretary Harry Scarey sent a memo to Ben Ripley stating that he would receive a pretrial hearing but there were problems . For instance, Scarey stated that he heard a lot of gossip about Ripley and overwhelming hearsay evidence was compelling enough to convict Ripley at a hearing. There was no need to be concerned about the concept of legal residuum.
Soon WJLT Reporter Willhee Hyde heard about the Commerce office meltdown and filed a freedom of information act (FOIA) for The Commerce Department to provide access to their recent public comments records about expanding agency headquarters. He also sent an addendum to release information about Ben Ripley citing public need to know why a government employee could be terminated. Scarey complied and said that he would do due diligence and also send out information about Ripley's transcript and reference letters. Scarey felt these were government records and the public had a right to know more about Ripley. All seemed ok, because Scarey, recently released photos of a deceased Commerce employee to the media. FOIA rules and regulations were more important than Privacy Act restrictions.
The next day, Scarey received notice that believe it or not he was to appear at a pretrial hearing for vacating his ministerial duties. Scarey retorted that running an agency meant making daily policy recommendations was more likely discretionary. This did not matter according to the courts who FELT Scarey had absolute immunity and could not be held liable. Soon, other issues revealed that the new Commerce employee Stan Yourground was accused of harassing other employees. Stan was not concerned since the standard of proof was beyond a reasonable doubt and in his mind, it was it simply was he said, she said issue. Finally, the Johnson City paper ran a headline at the end of the week which stated that negotiated rule making was needed to avert office unrest as well as assist with a new Climate Change initiative that the Commerce Department was undertaking with the Environmental Protection Agency.
Ripley was furious and had a serious disagreement with Scarey and promptly left the building. He was driving home when Officer Dare pulled him over and conducted a search of his car and looked for contraband. Ripley was detained by the police for six hours which was a humiliating experience since he did not commit any violations. Yet, he did not think there was a 1983 statute violation and that he lacked standing to sue.
The Commerce Department has a lot of drama. Please identify 5 perceived violations and briefly offer a better administrative legal approach to address the situation.