Keoppel v. Speirs - Essay Prowess

Keoppel v. Speirs


Kindly Add to CART and download the FULL sample paper at $5 Only.



Law Format or citation style:

APA Paper instructions: This is legal brief 4 of 4.

Case: Keoppel v. Speirs

Koeppel v. Speirs

Student`s Name

Institutional Affiliation


Koeppel v. Speirs. Supreme Court of Lowa

No. 08-1927 (Dec 23, 2011)

Koeppel, P an employee of Speirs appealed against a court order that offered a summary judgment in favor of Speirs, D who is an insurance agent (Koeppel v. Speirs, 2011). She had filed a case stating invasion of privacy and sexual harassment. She argues that the court erred in ruling that the facts presented did not support her claim of sexual harassment and invasion of privacy.


Did the district court err in upholding the district court’s ruling dismissing sexual harassment case filed by Koeppel, P? Also, did the Supreme Court of Lowa err in stating that there was enough evidence supporting intrusion to survive summary judgment?


In its decision concerning intrusion of privacy, the court stated that it upholds the decision of the court of appeals and reverse the decision of the district court (Koeppel v. Speirs, 2011). The court also upholds the district court’s judgment that there is lack of enough evidence supporting the sexual harassment claim.

Rules used by the courts

In its ruling on intrusion, the court used the Emerging Tort of Intrusion. The Restatement (Second) of Torts does not offer a clear explanation of the term intrusion. Nevertheless, it provides various examples that support cases of intrusion (Koeppel v. Speirs, 2011). In its ruling concerning sexual harassment, the court mainly uses the Iowa Civil Right Act. Although the act is against sexual harassment, it does not apply to employers who have less than four workers.


Speirs, D does not dispute that he placed a camera in the bathroom. However, he disputes that there is enough evidence showing that there was an intrusion of privacy (Koeppel v. Speirs, 2011). Koeppel, P argues that there is enough evidence that the camera was capable of transmitting images when new batteries were placed. The court stated that there lacked enough evidence to support the sexual harassment claim.


The definition of intrusion is clear based on the court’s decision. It is evident that Speirs, D invaded Koeppel, P’s privacy.


Koeppel v. Speirs. Supreme Court of Lowa. No. 08-1927 (Dec 23, 2011)

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?

Order now