On July 7, 2014
Mr. Marsh began working for Shearer-Quigley, and on that day, a document of confirmation was also delivered. He received an employee handbook that contained rules for various parts of the company, including employment, privacy, and other policies. He acknowledged that book was in no way a contract with the group by signing that page. He discovered a note indicating that nurse Welling was transporting medical materials to Baltimore's Northern Central Clinic. Mr. Marsh made copies of the note and reported to the outside authority as the reasonable cause of action as opposed to reporting to his supervisor who was also involved in the case.
There is a witness willing to testify that he received the note and made a copy just in case the other one got lost. The legal fact proves that material evidence is still there which can be used to justify the case of Mr. Marsh.
The issue
The issue regards the dismissal of Mr. Marsh from his active duty at Shearer-Quigley Hospital following his action to report an alleged criminal activity including a note that showed a nurse was involved in illegally stealing medication from the clinic. The hospital's privacy policy forbade any employee from sharing any information with an outside without the approval of the supervisor. Thus Mr. Marsh violated the policy by sharing the information contained in the note through reporting to the outside authority.
Short answers
There was a breach of law in the process of dismissal of Mr. Marsh since he was not accorded any opportunity to explain his situation. He was dismissed from his position for violating a privacy policy through reporting an illegal action in the organization.
Analysis
The case presents two options that the court see the violation of privacy policy according to the handbook issued to Mr. Marsh or see him (Mr. Marsh) being wrongfully dismissed from his position. For a fact, he violated the privacy policy by giving confidential information to a third party without the knowledge or authorization of his supervisor as stipulated by the employee handbook. The violation informs the grounds for his termination from the clinic for failing to protect sensitive information involving a staff of the clinic and the clinic itself. On the other hand, the infringement of the common law by selling clinic's medications to a third party will inform the judges the reason why Mr. Marsh opted to report the case to the outside the clinic's authority. Furthermore, his supervisor was indirectly involved in the case; hence he would not have been the best person to deal with the case.
The strongest counter argument of the case is that, despite the fact that Mr. Marsh violated the privacy policy of the clinic, his action was based on upholding the common law of Maryland.
The account of the witness supports the claims of Mr. Marsh as the witness also saw the note and duplicated it in case it got lost he would have a backup. The process of transmitting the information might raise concern because the witness and the policy chief are related. However, the material evidence might stand because the concern it not based on the falsification of the information.
Counter argument
In the case of Wholey v. Sears Roebuck, the court recognized that a common law bears much weight while reporting a suspected criminal activity of a co-worker and would constitute a wrongful discharge (Wholey v. Sears Roebuck et al. 46). The conclusion was that a clear public policy mandate exists in Maryland which protects employees from termination based on reporting a suspected criminal activity in their jurisdiction to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Accordingly, Mr. Marsh having reported a suspected criminal activity in his area of work is protected by the Maryland's law as it was in the case of Wholey v. Sears Roebuck & Co. in the Supreme Court in 2002.
Rebuttal
Mr. Marsh violated the privacy policy but the law provides that through him reporting an alleged criminal activity the right law enforcement agency, he is not liable to infringing the private policy in the clinic.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Marsh's case presents a situation whereby Maryland's law protecting an employee from wrongful dismissal for reporting a suspected criminal activity to the relevant authority of law enforcement is juxtaposed against internal policies of an organization. Mr. Marsh reported finding a note that implied that one nurse was involved in stealing medicine and taking them to another clinic. Thus the court will be looking at upholding the Maryland's law or the organization's privacy policy that Mr. Marsh violated in reporting the alleged criminal activity. The strength of the argument will be to show the court that despite the violation of privacy policy, Mr. Marsh was upholding the common law that advocates for an employee to report any perceived criminal activity in the workplace to the relevant law enforcement authority.
Work Cited
Wholey v. Sears Roebuck et al., 370 Md. 38. Court of Appeals of Maryland. 2002. Court of Appeals Collection. Legal Information Inst., Cornell U. Law School, n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2017.
.
