Recently the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine if an employee has the right to prevent an employer from viewing the employee's text messages sent or received on an employer-issued pager. Here is an article discussing the case. It is fair to say most people (from low-level employees to corporate executives) have sent or received personal correspondence during work, whether it was a telephone call, email, fax, or text message. When you sent or received that correspondence, what was your expectation of privacy? Does your answer change if your employer provides you a written policy stating your employer may record and view all correspondence sent or received on company-owned property? How do you think the U.S. Supreme Court will decide? Post your comments and answers below. We will continue to track this case and see how your responses correspond with the Supreme Court's decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No one should expect privacy when using company equipment. People forget this all the time but that doesn't mean that they have a legitimate expection of privacy.
ReplyDeleteI could see a legitimate expectation of privacy if the employee pays for the texting plan, even though the device used is owned by the employer. It seems written policy would be useful for the employer in this situation if it specifically addresses the fact that texts are company property, regardless of who pays for the plan. If the employer pays for both the device and the plan, I think the employee is out of luck where privacy is concerned.
ReplyDeleteWhile many of us are issued phones and PDAs that we use as if they were our own - they aren't. The phone is purchased by the company. The service plan is purchased by the company. The phone is company property. To many of us look at the phone as perk of employment to be used as we please for personal purposes, but the employer who purchased the phone had a much different use in mind: to increase employee productivity.
ReplyDeleteWhile a written policy is nice and helps to lay the ground rules when litigation ensues - we have to rely on common sense here, and common sense tells us that what happens on company property is subject to company inspection and no expectation of privacy exists.
In Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Company, the Ninth Circuit heavily relied on the fact the City did not have a written policy regarding text messages. While the City did have a policy on email, the City's Policy Manual was published before the City issued pagers or cell phones. As such, the Policy Manual was silent as to text message usage. It is very likely this case would not be at the Supreme Court if the City frequently updated its Policy Manual. If the Supreme Court rules the employee in this case had an expectation of privacy, the Court's decision likely will be limited to situations where Policy Manuals are silent as to privacy expectations of text messages on company pagers and phones. Employers concerned with text message and email usage would be wise to review their Policy Manuals and ensure the Manuals address and outline an employee's usage rights.
ReplyDelete