Total Articles: 20
What Does The Supreme Court's "GPS Decision" Mean For Private Employers?
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant before placing a Global Positioning System (GPS) device on a suspect’s vehicle for purposes of tracking the vehicle’s location.
Is It Legal for an Employer to Secretly Track an Employee's Personal Vehicle 24/7 for One Month? Perhaps!
A recent decision by a New York appellate court is one of the first cases to address the surreptitious use of location tracking for employment purposes. The 3-2 split decision highlights the on-going disagreement among judges over the lawful use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS). The New York case is particularly noteworthy because the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Maynard (argued November 7, 2011) is currently considering virtually the same issue addressed by the New York court, but in the criminal context. Given the increasing use of GPS in the workplace, employers need to understand the legal risks associated with this highly effective management and investigative tool.
Protecting Trade Secrets Through Employee Surveillance: Risky Business
The difference between having a trade secret and not can come down to the steps that a company takes to protect its secrets. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act, a version of which has been adopted in 46 states, provides that information qualifies for trade secret protection only if the owner takes steps that are reasonable under the circumstances to protect its secrecy. Employers commonly take the obvious steps to protect their trade secrets – for example, requiring employees to sign confidentiality agreements or restrictive covenants, implementing electronic controls; and let’s not forget sending demand letters and threatening litigation. These steps are obvious and therefore widely observed. But what about proactive monitoring? If you have a trade secret, you ought to keep an eye and ear out to make sure it’s not being used or disclosed. But, be careful; doing so is not without its risks.
You’re Not Paranoid if Someone Really Is Watching You: Monitoring Employee Use of Social Media.
The use of social media is a rapidly evolving fact of
life in today’s workplace that is changing the ways
people communicate with each other, providing
new ways to spend (and waste) time and new
avenues for employees to get themselves—and
their employers—into trouble. Many employers
today are still struggling with basic questions such
as whether or not to monitor their employees’ use
of social media, deciding what types of social media
should be monitored and wondering what to do
when misuse occurs.
Supreme Court Ruling on Employer Monitoring of Employee E-mails and Social Media.
Aaron Gelb appeared on SpencerConnect blog (part of BlogTalkRadio.com) and discussed the recent Supreme Court decision in City of Ontario (CA) v Quon, on employer monitoring of employee e-mail and social media sites; and its implications for employers. The discussion focused on employer monitoring of Internet usage at work, including risks of ignoring warning signs; how employers monitor social media and the associated pitfalls. Mr. Gelb covered additional implications ranging from state laws protecting off-duty conduct, to retaliation provisions of employment laws. He also briefly talked about what employers should do in terms of policies and procedures.
WORKPLACE PRIVACY AND TEXT MESSAGES: QUON V. ARCH WIRELESS.
With motorcycle gangs, a love triangle, and text messages that were, “to say the least, sexually explicit in nature,” in the words of the district court, Quon v. Arch Wireless, Inc. reads more like a cable television police drama than a typical United States Supreme Court decision. The case received significant press not only because of the salacious facts, but also because many expected the Court to determine the scope of workplace privacy in text messages and other electronic communications.
United States Supreme Court Permits Public Employer's Review Of Employee's Text Messages On Employer Provided Pagers
In the case of City of Ontario California v. Quon, 560 U.S. ___ (2010), the Supreme Court held that a public employer's review of an employee's text messages sent via an employer-provided pager did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures under the circumstances of the case. Though the Court issued a narrow, fact-specific opinion that expressly avoided deciding certain issues, the case provides important lessons for public and private employers in addressing employees' personal use of employer-provided electronic communication devices.
PUBLIC EMPLOYER’S SEARCH OF TEXT MESSAGES DID NOT VIOLATE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
In a closely-watched case, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a California city did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it searched text messages sent to and from an employee's alphanumeric pager issued by the City's Police Department.
Supreme Court Upholds City's Review of Employees' Text Messages.
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the City of Ontario did not violate its employees' Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches by reviewing the employees' text messages sent on pagers provided by the City. See City of Ontario v. Jeff Quon (June 17, 2010). The Court did not rule on whether the employees had a privacy interest in the text messages, but instead assumed that they did and ruled on the issue of whether the City's search violated the Fourth Amendment. Although the decision involves a government employer, which is subject to the Fourth Amendment's restrictions, private employers may also find the decision instructive because the Court noted that the City's search also would have been reasonable in the private workplace. Thus, employers considering searching their employees' electronic communications should be aware of the factors the Court considered in finding the City's search reasonable.
Supreme Court Recognizes Right Of Public Employers To Search Electronic Communications.
On June 17, 2010 the U. S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a public employer's search of an employee's text messages was reasonable and did not violate the employee's constitutional rights. The decision overturned a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which found the employer's search was unreasonable in scope and, therefore, violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
It's Unanimous: Supreme Court Permits Search of Employees' Electronic Communications.
In Quon v. City of Ontario, the 9th Circuit held that a California police department’s review of an officer’s text messages was an invasion of the officer’s right to privacy. In a unanimous ruling issued yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Quon decision and ruled that the police department’s review of the provocative text messages sent by the officer to his wife and to his mistress from his employer-issued pager, did not constitute an invasion of the officer’s privacy. (Link to the full opinion in City of Ontario v. Quon).
Supreme Court rules that review of public employee's text messages was not a Constitutional violation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a city police department's search of an employee/police officer’s text messages was reasonable, and did not violate the individual’s Fourth Amendment (“search and seizure”) rights. City of Ontario v. Quon, No. 08-1332, U.S. Supreme Court (June 17, 2010). While employers have been anticipating the high court’s opinion on whether employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy related to electronic messages, the Supreme Court did not tackle that issue. Instead, the Court assumed that the officer did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal text messages. However, the Court also found that the search was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose, and was not excessive in scope. Based upon those factors, the Court held that the city's review of the officer's text messages was reasonable and did not violate the employee’s Constitutional Rights. City of Ontario v. Quon, No. 08-1332, U.S. Supreme Court (June 17, 2010).
Off-Duty Discussion Groups Can Be Off-Limits to Employers.
There is an inherent tension between an employee's right to privacy and an employer's right to monitor an employee's conduct – especially where the employer believes that the conduct may harm its business or otherwise subject it to liability. This tension has only grown with the rapid expansion of social media and the larger audience with which an employee may share his grievances.
I Always Feel Like, the School Is Watching Me: Electronic Monitoring Gone Wrong?
Electronic monitoring is a very hot topic in employment law these days. But what about other types of electronic monitoring by employers? A case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleges a much more unusual sort of electronic monitoring. The suit alleges that Lower Marion School District distributed over 1,800 laptops to its students. So far, so good.
Court OKs Verdict Against Restaurant for Managers' Access of MySpace Account.
Social networking sites today abound. MySpace was created in 2003 and rapidly became a social must-have for high school and college students alike. As a result, these students began to live their lives in an open fashion, posting everything from the mundane to the shock-worthy events of their lives for everyone to view and comment. Accordingly, today's employees may find it hard to differentiate between online life and offline life, since to them it is all merged. This becomes problematic for employers when these employees take to their social networking site, be it MySpace, Facebook, Twitter or a blog, to air frustrations with their job or their company to a mass audience.
U.S. Supreme Court to Review Text Messaging Case.
For the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court will address the rights of employers to review text messages sent by and to employees on employer-provided equipment. See Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 12/14/09. In Quon, the Ninth Circuit held that the City of Ontario violated a city employee's Fourth Amendment privacy rights when it read the employee's text messages. The messages were sent by the employee (a police officer and member of the city's SWAT team) from a text-messaging pager purchased and provided by the city and were stored by an outside service provider.
U.S. SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE IF EMPLOYERS MAY REVIEW EMPLOYEE TEXT MESSAGES.
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide this term whether employers can review the text messages that employees send on their employer-issued cell phones, Blackberries, or pagers. In the case in question, Quon v. Arch Wireless, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Ontario, its Police Department and Police Chief violated an employee's right to privacy by reviewing text messages which were sent to and from an employee's Department-issued pager.
Court Finds Employer Has Duty to Third Party to Act on Knowledge that Employee Accessed Pornography at Work (pdf).
A New Jersey appeals court has permitted
a plaintiff to proceed with her negligence
claims against her ex-husband’s employer
based on allegations that the employer knew her
ex-husband was accessing pornography at work
and had a duty to investigate and report this access
to the proper authorities.
e-trends: more companies are monitoring e-mail.
Brief discussion regarding the increase in employer electronic monitoring of employee e-mail (including some AMA statistics).
Can We Tape?
Reference site for information on tape recording phone calls.
