West Wing 1x13 Sam Seaborn Fires Karen Larsen

[@michaelhayden725]

She actually should have been charged under Federal Law for leaking information classified under the Privacy Act, this was well before Leo gave her another chance.

[@TheStuport]

I remember the very first time I watched this scene all those years ago....and it still resonates in 2024. I also agree with your summation. Cheers

[@michaeltalley51]

It's also a HIPPA violation, assuming HIPPA was actually in place back then.

[@keithduvall812]

Hippa in place 1996 I believe.

[@jdb316]

@@keithduvall812Correct, though HIPAA only pertains to health insurers, health care providers, and similar “covered entities.” Other federal laws protect this kind of information outside of health care, but HIPAA specifically wouldn’t apply here.

[@michaelmuldowney8]

Whomever employed Paris Geller in the White House - should also get fired.

[@keithduvall812]

Why that's over reaching. The person who hired her would have no inclination that she would have done this when hired. So what would be the reason for termination without being sued?

[@James-gy9kr]

Should’ve hired Rory Gilmore. This never would’ve happened with Rory.

[@Edawgpilot]

@@keithduvall812r/whoosh

[@gmh471]

When a superior you have never met before introduces himself, the response should never be "I know." Of course this was a one-off character that was never developed, but her privilege showed with that response, the fact that she referred to Claypool as a "family friend" and when Leo gave her back her job, she did not say thank you. Not to mention likely violating federal law and not being held to account.

[@thekirksiffs5285]

Oh Paris! You didn't....thought you were smarter than that!

[@kyle381000]

And then Leo gives her another chance, thus making Sam look stupid. Again.

[@keithduvall812]

Yes, but it is his choice.

[@Sam-kh2zh]

Sam didn't look stupid in the least. He fired her for being untrustworthy, and for giving confidential information to a political operative from the opposition, thus harming the administration. Most of all, he did it to protect Leo, whom Sam respects more than almost anyone. The fact that Leo turned around and gave her the job back (which I still question) doesn't change the fact that Sam did the right thing. That's never stupid.

[@keithduvall812]

@@kyle381000 that and the fact the order to fire her came from Leo anyway. " worst I can do is fire you and I've already done that."

[@patrickcorliss8878]

Interesting that Leo made some very poor decisions. Re-hiring her was not compassionate. It sent the wrong message.

[@Mr_Mike97190]

@@patrickcorliss8878what message? That they want to hire people who are willing to hold them accountable?! It’s one of the main messages that Leo has with her at the end of the episode when he says what she did was a bit brave. Did she go about it the wrong way, absolutely, but, given her past experiences with her father, she was afraid that decisions could be made while Leo wasn’t in the best condition or mind state, which she expressed that fear and concern to Leo…

[@9teenfifT8]

This is my comment.

[@psych46]

Sam being intolerant of those who think and act differently than he does, what happened to tolerance for moral diversity? 😒

[@pauritus1635]

I am sure you would have acted differently if it was you in Sam's position. Especially given it was likely illegal what she did - giving someone else medical history without consent.

[@psych46]

@@pauritus1635 Yes I would have. I would have pursued Leo's option which ultimately resulted in giving that lady a second chance. Leo was right in pursuing the restorative justice approach vs Sam's transactional punishment. Note how Sam didn't even bother to let the young lady finish and just called for security to escort her out without bothering to hear her side of the story. How ignorant and intolerant. Whether it's leaking medical history to murder, the restorative justice's approach to address infractions by facilitating conversation between the two parties and coming to an agreement is much more
beneficial to all parties involved, no?

[@pauritus1635]

@@psych46 I see you are fine in breaking the law by giving up someone else's medical records illegally without their consent. I didn't say anything one way or another regarding Leo's response. Your response indicates that if someone breaks the law in violating someone else's privacy and giving out their medical records, that they should not have much in the way of repercussions.
Her actions were immoral. I am fine with Leo giving her job back, but there was no moral imperative that he did so.
The problem with coming to an agreement is that often there isn't an agreement. Was Sam obligated to agree with Pam's decision? Why must he? If he doesn't, he is in the wrong, not Pam, who broke the law?

[@psych46]

@@pauritus1635 Laws are nothing more than shackles made by The White Man to impose systemic racism, wage gap, gender inequality, and prejudice. What this young lady patriot did is no different than those brave actions taken by our modern day heroes and Patriots: Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Reality Winner, and Edward Snowden. We need to replace those heads at Mt. Rushmore with these folk, this fictional lady included.

[@edbarrett3620]

Leo fired her, Sam just delivered the msg. When as has been pointed out elsewhere, she meets with Leo and they talk, he says “the worst that I can do is fire you, and I’ve already done that”. He doesn’t say “Sam did that”, showing her that Leo has the ultimate say in this situation. He’s not making Sam look bad, he’s adjusting his own actions after learning she had to live with a drunk, which ultimately is what Leo is.