CASE BRIEF I. Case cite

1996 914 F. Supp. 97 (January 18, 1996 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.)

II. Facts

Michael A. Smyth was a regional operations manager at the Pillsbury Company. Smyth had a company email account that he was able to access from work and home. Pillsbury, on multiple occasions, told its employees that all email communications were private, confidential, and that there was no danger of the messages being intercepted and used as grounds for discipline or termination.

In October 1994, while at home, Smyth received emails from his supervisor and, thinking that his replies would not be intercepted or used against him, made threatening comments. Pillsbury intercepted the emails and, despite the previous assurances made to the employees, terminated him. Smyth brought a wrongful discharge suit against Pillsbury, claiming that his right to privacy had been violated when his emails were intercepted Tort (invasion of Privacy)

III. Legal history of case The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court was not persuaded by the arguments and granted Pillsbury's motion to dismiss.

IV. Issues on appeal. The employee’s privacy interests against the employer’s need to discover information. V. Holding The facts that the Smyth's person and personal property weren't searched and he was not required by Pillsbury to disclose any personal information. VI. Legal reasoning.
Did not find a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mail communications voluntarily made by an employee to his supervisor over the company e-mail system.

Plaintiff communicated the alleged unprofessional comments to a second person his supervisor over an e-mail system which was apparently utilized by the entire company, any reasonable expectation of privacy was lost. the defendant did not require plaintiff, as in the case of a urinalysis or personal property search, to disclose any personal information about himself. Rather, plaintiff voluntarily communicated the alleged unprofessional comments over the company e-mail system. We find no privacy interests in such communications.
The defendant’s actions did not tortiously invade the plaintiff’s privacy and, therefore, did not violate public policy.