Video case 1: Privacy / Employment at Will: Fired for Whistling?

To access the case study, go to McGraw Hill Connect (note you will need to launch McGraw-Hill Campus in a new window).
Select "Connect" to the Resources.
Click on the "Library" tab.
Then click "Student Resources." You will then be taken to the McGraw Hill Student Resource Site.
In the left column, select "You Be the Judge." This will bring you to a list of video case studies for the course.
Click on Case Study #10 “Privacy/Employment at Will: Fired for Whistling?” to get started on this week's exercise. When you are finished, click "Print."
Here is the link: http://highered(dot)mheducation(dot)com/sites/0078023858/student_view0/you_be_the_judge.html
In addition to the PDF, complete the following:
1)IRAC Analysis (1-2 pages, described below)
2)Do you believe the judge came to the correct conclusion?
3)Are there any missing facts which would help sway someone to your position?
IRAC stands for Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion, and it's a method for organizing legal analysis so that the reader can follow your argument. A sample of a completed IRAC AnalysisPreview the documentView in a new window has been provided for additional support.
Issue
State the question or problem that you are trying to answer (what might bring the parties into court). This can be in the form of a question or a statement depending on what your reader prefers.
However, in legal memos, one may state the conclusion up front (in case the reader is too busy to read through the entire analysis. Some professors also prefer that you state the conclusion up front.
Rule
State the rule or legal principle. This may take the form of stating the elements required for a prima facie case.
Some professors do not want you to explicitly state the rule (i.e., “The rule is…”). Rather, they prefer that you imply it in your answer. In other words, cut to the chase by focusing your rule statement on the part of the rule or element that is at issue.
Analysis
State your evidence and explain how you will arrive at your conclusion. You may cite other cases, discuss policy implications, and discuss (discount?) cases that run counter to your conclusion.
Make sure that you weigh both sides and make counterarguments where appropriate.
Use case law, analogizing and distinguishing, and policy (for example, the goals of tort law) to work your way to a conclusion.
Conclusion
State your conclusion as a result of the analysis.
p/s I prefer it double space