> In the opinion of the court, a company has the authority to demand that their employee hands over the contents of his personal computer?

This is absolutely the case with at-will employment, and maybe even with an executive or officer directly involved in a case even without that (and an executive likely has a contract that puts them under something other than simple at-will terms.)

> That doesn't sound right... please, somebody tell me the US judicial system isn't that retarded!

If you don't like the law, that doesn't make the judiciary retarded for correctly explaining it.

To me it sounds like you are saying no, an employer cannot compel you to give them your personal information, but that they can terminate your employment if you refuse to hand it over

is that what you meant? I think 08-15's concern was more along the lines of an employer having the ability to demand someone to give up their personal information without their consent.

A company cannot make you give them any personal information without your consent. They can of course fire you for not doing so.

That of course is only valid in a few countries. In most European countries, firing someone for that would immediately be overturned by a court.

Considering this is an American federal court case between two American companies, concerning an American employee, for actions in America, I don't think "Yes but in Europe..." is relevant.

Obviously there are limits on what a company can ask its employees to do. I don't think a company would get very far if it required employees to bring in nude photos or dress up in blackface or something.

But in this case these are files that are related to the day job, and are materially impacting the business. Seems like they would be on solid ground conditioning further employment on furnishing the files.

..."And if you don't do that, you're fired."

I am guessing they do have the ability to fire on those grounds.

Why would they not have the authority to do that?

If they want, your employer could demand that you wear pink underwear of a particular brand at all times when in the building and fire you if you did not.

That is a very american perspective though. In Germany you are not allowed to fire someone for these reasons (you might be able to dismiss him for no reason at all but the contract will not be over for quite a long time) So the authority of a company firing somebody over not handing over their laptop can be reasonably questioned.

> That is a very american perspective though.

Yes, and this case is between American parties, under American law, in the U.S. (of America) District Court for the Northern District of California.

I'm aware of that and just wanted to point out why this american perspective can be questioned, which was -in my opinion- the intend of "08-15".

As long as it's not discrimination based, you can fire someone for any reason.

My boss could fire me for disliking the color of my T-Shirt this morning.

> As long as it's not discrimination based, you can fire someone for any reason.

Every decision to choose one course of action over another is "discrimination-based"; you mean as long as it is not discrimination on an expressly-prohibited basis.

That depends a lot on jurisdiction. It's not even true for every job/state combination in the US.

But what are Germany's laws about discovery? This seems like a problem that would have occurred even before computers: if an executive is handwriting letters at home to engage in illegal activity for the benefit of their company, does a German court have authority to search the home?

This is an American case, and it's being litigated in accordance with American law, so the judge is using American rules about employment to achieve the goal here. I would be surprised if there weren't some way to accomplish the same goal in Germany.

The comment you're replying to wasn't meant as a comment on the case, but to rebut the idea that "at-will employment" is some sort of universally-valid, natural state. It's just one of many possible answers, and every society has come up with their own.

Regarding discovery, I must say that the US system is actually more advanced than Germany, where, in civil law, there isn't really a doctrine for recovering incriminating evidence (or otherwise compelling evidence) from the opposite side, apart from a few specific circumstances.

I'm not convinced "at-will" employment extends this far, especially in California. There are still protections against being fired for reasons unrelated to your job.

You forgot the rest of it:

> And you also have the authority to say, "And if you don't do that, you're fired."

They have evidence that he stole documents from a competitor. Asking him to prove he doesn't have any of those documents or be fired seems perfectly reasonable.

It's part of the standard employment contract, as a nuclear option that's only invoked in cases like this.

Basically, if the employee refuses and the company fires the employee, the company can shield itself from liability by cutting ties with the employee and telling the court that they had no idea what the employee was up to and didn't condone it at all.

I mean, can't it? California is an "at-will" employment state, right? They could presumably fire an employee for refusing to straight up burn their own house down.

That's what we call a "fired if you do, fired if you don't" kind of situation.

That would constitute arson, and arson is a crime. It's not legal to procure criminal behavior, whether by an employment contract or by other coercive means.

Technically, arson is burning down someone else's property. It's not a criminal offence to burn down a house you own, though it is likely a non-criminal fire code violation.

I don't think that's right. For example, in the California Penal Code,

"A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property." [1]

The incendiary's ownership or not of the property doesn't matter.

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

From your link:

  For purposes of this paragraph, arson of property does
  not include one burning or causing to be burned his or
  her own personal property unless there is an intent to
  defraud or there is injury to another person or another
  person’s structure, forest land, or property.

Thank you - I agree it turns on mens rea. Burning one's own property can be criminal arson, depending on intent or result.

Just as you'd expect. Whether the property in question are books you own, or a shed, or your entire house it's your property and it's not a crime to turn your property into a bonfire so long as doing so doesn't break other criminal laws.

As that would be arson I have some doubts it goes that far. It would be a very interesting whistleblowing case I suspect.

But the whistleblowing would be for "trying to force an employee to commit arson", not for firing them.

It doesn't seem to be that simple in most US jurisdictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Public_poli...