The following is for recreational reading purposes and shared as food for thought concerning “employer responsibility”:

Mission of OSHA – ensuring corporations and employers are in current compliance with federal and state employment laws as a means of remaining in good standing as a reputable business.

OSHA is allowed to randomly show up to businesses and like FBI agents, come in and inspect or search a business to ensure they are in compliance with the law. The purpose of OSHA-occupational safety health administration, is to do their part in making sure that businesses are operating safely with the necessary safety equipment, so employees can be productive and work in a safe environment. Compliance officers can either issue a statement of a business being in good standing. Or slap companies of all sizes with fines if found in violation. A good thing to know about companies who are cited for violations and slapped with penalties is if and when they clean up their “spilled milk” and get back into compliance, OSHA has a willingness to work with the company-employer to “reduce financial penalties.” Financial penalty reduction, according to the YouTube video, varies from an employer’s demonstrated good faith, previous inspection history,size of business, and gravity of violation.

The additional good news about employers-companies with a willingness to clean up their spilled milk and get their act together and reducing OSHA violations and penalties is the ability to increase their corporate profit potential. How so? When and if OSHA puts the word out on their government website or word-of-mouth spreads around that “so-and-so company is on good terms now with OSHA,” people will get the good word and may start relying on that business for their needs, whatever it is. People love to hear good things about businesses and when they do, those are considered their “go to businesses.”

• Briefly discuss the lawsuit to include the charge, the defense, and the outcome

Sony pictures was hit with a lawsuit back in 2014 biofuel employees due to a massive data breach.the charge against Sony was not only getting hacked, but it was specifically on the charge of “not doing enough to protect sensitive information about the employees.”

An article from the Washington Post discussing the 2014 Sony lawsuit mentions “Former employees have filed four lawsuits this week accusing Sony of not doing enough to protect their private data, including Social Security numbers, salaries, performance reviews and personal medical information. The latest suit, filed late Thursday on behalf of Michael Levine, a former technical director at Sony Pictures Imageworks and Felix Lionel, a former Sony Pictures director of technology, says the company’s negligence led to the release of personal information about 47,000 current and former employees.” (Peterson, 2014). It sounds as if Sony could have done more to protect the sensitive information of their employees. Anyone would surely feel violated, especially if their salary information was exposed online or to complete strangers, because it’s no one’s business to know that employee salary except for the employee and the employer. That alone can incite a lawsuit seeking millions of dollars in punitive damages.

The Washington Post further goes on to mention in the article about Sony “The lawsuit filed in federal court Thursday said Sony had plenty of warning that it was vulnerable to a cyber attack, including a massive hack of its PlayStation Network in 2011. Sony intentionally did not provide “adequate data security” in order to save money, the suit said. It was also lax about internal security, keeping passwords to its computer networks and social media accounts in files labeled “password.”.” (Peterson, 2014).

Sony’s defense – Sony allegedly claims “but it’s not listed verbatim in the article more directly” that they possibly knew nothing about the cyber attack before it happened.many people feel Sony could’ve done more to protect their databases-servers from sensitive information being leaked, including additional encryption of corporate information on its intranet.though it’s also not mentioned in the article, Sony allegedly blames North Korea for penetrating its servers and stealing information, which Sony allegedly claims no responsibility for.Outcome of case- Employees sued and filed separate lawsuits. An article from Deadline.com briefly discusses the outcome of the Sony cyber attack-data breach case. Sony agrees to provide “identity theft protection,” in addition to supplying monies to employees who succumbed to victims of the Sony data mine hack. The article mentions “Class members who sign up for the AllClear Pro program will have an identity-theft insurance policy of up to $1 million each. Lawyers for the class said in court Wednesday that about 18,000 members have joined the offered program to date.” (Patten 2016). This is a good move for Sony because it shows a willingness to clean up their tarnished reputation and a move showing that they’re taking sensitive information protection seriously.plaintiffs are getting anywhere between $1000, $3000, and up to $10,000 per complaint.

* Include your opinions regarding the case – There was definitely more that could’ve been done to protect the information of employees including salaries, Social Security numbers, employee schedules, etc. Sony is too big of a corporation to allegedly focus on the little people and suspectedly, could care less. Moreover, since North Korea allegedly broke into Sony servers and allegedly stole information on Sony employees, Sony probably felt they weren’t to blame and didn’t want to take blame for the employees information, therefore feeling unobligated to compensate employees for data breach damages. Companies like Sony who feel they’re too big to fail need to take additional precautions not just to protect sensitive information, but also to protect their reputation. When the general public hears of things like this and starts to think in the back of their minds that Sony probably doesn’t care about their employees, this can have a huge financially adverse effect on Sony product sales, Sony entertainment distribution revenue potential, etc. Regardless how big Sony or any company is, they should always have “the little people protected at all times,” because it’s the little people that keep big-name companies thriving. Agree?