Specific Instructions:
 

1. You have three hours to complete the exam. The questions will be weighed equally, so I suggest that you spend approximately 1 1/2 hours on each question.
 

2. If you believe that a fact is missing which is necessary for your analysis of the question, you should state what assumption you are making about the fact and then continue your analysis.
 

3. Please write only on one side of each page in your blue book. Please use a separate blue book for each question.
 

4. Please write legibly.
 

5. The ability to write clearly and in an organized manner is an essential skill for all lawyers. While I will not deduct from your score for a badly written exam, your grade will be improved if you produce well-written responses to the questions.
 

Question 1. John Jones is an African American working as a property manager for a large apartment complex that is owned and operated by the Riverbluff Apartment Company. He has been employed by the company for 8 years and has worked in various maintenance and property management positions. As manager, he supervises a staff of 3 clerical workers and 4 maintenance workers. He is the only African American employed by the company. During his employment, his performance evaluations have been excellent and he has never received any discipline from the employer.
 

Riverbluff has adopted a "zero tolerance" policy with respect to any use of controlled substances on its premises. As part of its efforts to enforce this policy, its employees regularly enter apartments to search for drugs if such usage is suspected. A recent change in state law limits the circumstances under which a landlord may enter a tenant's apartment without notice, and requires that the landlord disclose any such entry to the tenant if the tenant is not home when entry is made. Riverbluff has directed its staff to continue to "inspect" apartments where drug activity is suspected and has forbidden the employees to provide either prior notice or any disclosure that the premises have been entered by the employee. During several meetings of the property managers for all of Riverbluff's complexes, Jones has repeatedly sought to discuss the policy and the changes in the state law. In the meetings, Jones has also stated that he believes that African American tenants are being unfairly targeted for the "inspections". The company has ignored his concerns, and he has been directed not to attempt to discuss the issue any further.
 

Last week, Jones voluntarily appeared in Court on behalf of a tenant whom Riverbluff was attempting to evict due to alleged drug activity. Jones testified that the tenant's apartment had been "inspected" without proper notice to the tenant. In addition, in response to questions from the tenant's attorney, Jones testified that all of the eviction actions filed by Riverbluff alleging drug activity had been against African American tenants. Following Jones' testimony, the Court dismissed the eviction action against the tenant.
 

The next morning, when the president of Riverbluff was told about Jones' testimony, he became furious. In a meeting with the human resources manager, he stated that Jones "must be on drugs" and ordered the human resources department to arrange for an immediate drug test for Jones. He also ordered that Jones' office and desk be searched for any evidence of drug activity. Riverbluff has never conducted any employee drug testing prior to this. When Jones was told of the pending drug test, he agreed to provide the necessary sample for testing after he was told he would be fired if he did not. When Jones' office and desk were searched, no drugs were found. However, the security officer conducting the search seized several personal letters from Mr. Jones' attorney detailing Mr. Jones' difficulties with the IRS. In addition, during the search, the security officer decided to search Jones' computer files. When they did so, they learned that Jones had visited sexually explicit Internet sites during work hours using the computer in his office.
 

When Riverbluff's president was told what had been found, he stormed out of his office and into the company's security department. He collected the head of security and went to the apartment complex managed by Jones. He found Jones in the community room of the complex, talking to residents. He shouted "you're fired" at Jones, and directed the security officer to escort him out of the building. When Jones asked why the action was being taken, he responded that "you know why" and told Jones that the security department would pack up any personal property and deliver it to Jones' house, "to make sure that no company property is stolen" by Jones.
 

Based upon these facts, discuss the plausible legal claims that Jones could bring against Riverbluff. What defenses are likely to be raised by Riverbluff?
 

If you were counsel to Riverbluff, and were consulted by the company after the search and prior to any action being taken against Jones, what advice would you give the company regarding the appropriate action to take and why?
 

Would your analysis differ in any way if Riverbluff were a public entity?
 

Question 2. Joan Smith and Annie Nelson have both been employed by a large company for many years. They have socialized together frequently, and considered themselves to be friends. Smith has recently become the President of the company; at that time, she appointed Nelson as the Senior Vice President.
 

Shortly after her promotion, Nelson began to date the recently hired head of the finance department, Brian Butler. Mr. Butler has dated many women within the company and has a reputation as a "womanizer". Smith does not approve of the relationship between Butler and Nelson. She arranged to meet Nelson after work one night to talk to her, and during the discussion strongly advised Nelson to terminate the relationship with Butler. Nelson rejected the advice, and terminated any further social relationship with Smith. Shortly thereafter, Nelson announced that she and Butler will soon marry.
 

Recently, the company hosted a national trade meeting. As part of the meeting, the company sponsored a formal reception and dinner. Smith claims that she received reports from several persons that Butler and Nelson behaved inappropriately at the reception, and that the other employees were embarrassed. However, Smith has refused to identify the employees who complained and there is no documentation regarding the complaints.
 

In recent weeks, Smith has begun to severely criticize the quality of Nelson's work. She believes that Nelson is neglecting her duties and points to the relationship with Butler as the reason. Nelson believes that Smith is "picking on her" and maintains that she is continuing to perform her job at an exemplary level. Smith also accuses Nelson of sharing confidential information with Butler, a charge that Nelson vehemently denies. In addition, Smith has accused Nelson of being "disloyal" and of criticizing her to other employees in the workplace. Nelson has also learned that Smith's secretary has access to Nelson's telephone line and has been regularly listening to Nelson's personal telephone calls and reporting their content to Smith.
 

Nelson has begun to suffer anxiety attacks at work. She also suffers from numerous physical symptoms, which she attributes to stress. She went to her physician who diagnosed her as suffering from depression and anxiety and suggested medication and counseling. Nelson believes that the constant criticism from Smith and the resulting stress are the reasons for her problems. On the recommendation of her doctor, she has requested a leave of absence from work due to the problems she is suffering. Smith has refused the request, stating that the only reason that Nelson is having any problems is the relationship with Butler. In addition, Smith stated that Nelson cannot justify the need for the leave because she plans to go forward with her wedding, which is scheduled to take place in a few weeks. Finally, Smith also stated that if Nelson is having "mental" problems she is clearly not capable of performing in an executive level position. When Nelson called in sick for three days in a row, Smith left a voice mail message for Nelson stating that she is not working out in her new position and is being immediately demoted to her previous position. She is also directed to return to work immediately or she will be fired.
 

Nelson comes to you for advice. Analyze the claims or causes of action that are potentially available to her. What advice would you give her and why?
 

What defenses would be available to the company? What advice would you give the company and why?