Is my employee's GMAIL fair game?

It’s amazing what people will put in their emails, even after they have been warned by their lawyers.  There have been a number of cases I have been involved in where an employer has been able to access emails from an employee's web-based hotmail account that show he or she is actively violating a non-compete or even sending work to a competitor.  The question is, can an employer access an employee's web-based email?

A recent law.com article investigated a number of decisions arising from use of the Stored Communications Act. The SCA creates a criminal offense and civil liability for whomever “intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided” or “intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility” and by doing so, “obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or an electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system.” 18 U.S.C. § 27.01.  The decisions vary.

The article suggests a robust electronic communications policy  will go a long way to protect the employer, but it is unlikely that any employer has a policy that would allow them to obtain and use an employee’s password in order to access their web-based accounts. Obviously, once the employer uses the emails in the litigation, it will become obvious that they have utilized the password to obtain that information.  The employer could consider simply requesting the communications through normal avenues of discovery.  If you are going to use such evidence be prepared for the ramifications.

(H/T to Jon Hyman of the Ohio Employer's Law Blog)

 

 

Tags:

The Latest In Employment Torts

                                

Tomorrow I will be speaking at the University of Houston Law Center Advanced Employment Law Seminar in Dallas regarding employment torts.  The paper prepared for the presentation covers the latest and greatest in torts ranging from false imprisonment to tortious interference.   

The Office: Michael Scott Shows How Not to Compete

                                       

Two weeks ago on the Office, Michael Scott gave Dunder Mifflin notice of his  resignation. Upon return to Scranton, Michael hatched a plan to start Michael Scott Paper Company and started with some due diligence (I apologize for the advertisement but NBC has to pay the bills):

Michael then asked most of the Scranton staff to come to his new company and started working on putting together  paper order forms.  Eventually the higher-ups got wind of Michael's new venture:

Unfortunately, for Michael there is no two week "immunity" period. Employees in Texas can set the stages for starting a competing venture (assuming there is no non-compete or other restrictive agreement) on their own time, but not while at work.  The good news for Michael is that Pam the receptionist left Dunder Mifflin to join Michael.

Recording Phone Calls & Polygraph Testing

Recording phone conversations.

One issue that I frequently receive questions about is whether it's permissible to record phone conversations that you are a party to?  The answer varies from state to state.  In the absence of more restrictive state law, federal law permits an individual who is a party to the telephone conversation to record it. 

Some states require both parties to consent to the recording (two-party consent).  Texas does not (one-party consent).  The rub arises when there is an interstate call between a one-party state and two-party state. The California Supreme Court (.pdf) has held that in such a situation, two-party consent is necessary.

Recording a phone call can be a useful tool for avoiding misunderstandings and I have even used them in breach of contract cases where an oral agreement is disputed.  If you are going to record, the best practice is to get the consent of the other party.  If you're not going to do that make sure you know the law of your state and the state you are calling. 

 

Polygraph testing your employees.

                                       

Jon Hyman provided a primer on employee polygraph testing in the Ohio Employer's Law Blog this past week.  Frankly, I had never heard of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 but it prohibits with limited exceptions:

  • Requiring, requesting, suggesting, or causing an employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test;
  • Using, accepting, referring to, or inquiring about the results of any lie detector test of an employee or prospective employee; and
  • Discharging, disciplining, discriminating against, denying employment or promotion, or threatening to take any such action against an employee or prospective employee for refusing to take a test, on the basis of the results of a test, for filing a complaint, for testifying in any proceeding, or for exercising any rights afforded by the EPPA.