The idea of employee monitoring has become increasingly controversial throughout the past few years. With the introduction of social media, the widespread use of global positioning satellite (GPS) technology, and cameras in many public locations, it has become ever more difficult to keep our lives private. It is the need for privacy that has raised tensions between employers and employees. With the rise of employee monitoring many employees feel that employers target them, or even discipline the employee for benign activities such as using social media applications on company computers. While employers would agree that they have the right to scrutinize “personal” activities, such as sending harassing emails or disclosing company secrets. Employers …show more content…
Thus the employer must take steps to protect third parties from injury by the employees, as well as protecting the company from employee acts that may undermine the company’s business. By monitoring employee use of company assets the employer can protect the company from the legal implications of its employees (Ford, Willey, White, & Domagalski, 2015) . Current legislation is inapt to handle the frequently changing information systems available today. An example of this is prevalent in the case of (City of Ontario, California v. Quon, 2010). In 2001 the Ontario Police Department (OPD) had issued officers pagers capable of sending and receiving text messages. Following the issue of the pagers the City of Ontario announced a new computer policy. This policy did not explicitly address the pagers in use, in part due to the control and monitoring of the pagers was provided by Arch Wireless a service provider. Officer Jeff Quon had exceeded his monthly character allowance multiple times and an inquiry was sent to Arch Wireless from the Ontario Police Department. The department reviewed the transcripts provided and noted that many messages were not work related and some even sexually explicit. The transcripts were then turned over to Internal Affairs and officer Quon was disciplined. Quon filed suit claiming that …show more content…
It also assured its employees that the email communications could not be intercepted and used against the employees as ground for termination. In October of 1994 Mr. Smyth corresponded via email with his supervisor. These emails were delivered to Mr. Smyth at his residence via the Pillsburry intranet system. At a later date the company intercepted Mr. Smyth’s private emails and immediately notified him of the termination of his employment for transmitting inappropriate comments over Pillsbury’s email system. Mr. Smyth then claims his termination of employment ”was in violation of public policy which precludes an employer from terminating an employee in violation of the employee's right to privacy as embodied in Pennsylvania common law" (Smyth v. Pillsbury Co, 1996). The court found that employee emails are voluntary and that preventing unethical comments in the workplace is more important that employee privacy (Smith & Tabak, 2009). The law of Pennsylvania is clear, however, that an employer may not be estopped from firing an employee based upon a promise, even when reliance is demonstrated as noted in Paul v. Lankenau Hospital, 524 Pa. 90, 569 A.2d 346