Legal Implications of Reviewing Employees’ E-Mail

Recent case rules in favor of employer, but not all courts may agree.

Church Finance Today

Legal Implications of Reviewing Employees’ E-Mail

Recent case rules in favor of employer, but not all courts may agree.

Background. A growing number of churches have installed computer systems that permit employees to communicate with one another by means of electronic mail. What happens when a church official or supervisor accesses an employee’s e-mail without permission? Can the church be sued?

A recent ruling. A federal court in Pennsylvania addressed this question in a recent decision. A secular employer maintained an electronic mail communication system in order to promote internal communications between its employees. The employer repeatedly assured its employees that all e-mail communications would remain confidential and privileged. It further assured its employees that e-mail communications could not be intercepted and used against any employee as grounds for termination or reprimand.

Contrary to its own assurances of confidentiality, the employer intercepted private e-mail messages made by one of its employees to another employee. The employer later informed the employee that his employment was being terminated for transmitting what it deemed to be “inappropriate and unprofessional” comments over the e-mail system. The e-mail messages made disparaging comments about a supervisor and referred to a planned holiday party as the “Jim Jones Koolaid affair.”

The court ruled that the employee’s rights had not been violated. It based its ruling on the following factors:

• Pennsylvania recognizes the “employment at will” doctrine meaning that an employer may discharge an “at will employee” (one not hired for a specific term) “with or without cause, at pleasure, unless restrained by some contract” or public policy. Many other states follow this rule.

• Employers may not dismiss an “at will employee” if doing so would violate “a clear mandate of public policy.” But the court rejected the dismissed employee’s claim that the employer’s actions amounted to an invasion of his privacy and as such violated public policy. The court observed:

[W]e do not find a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mail communications voluntarily made by an employee to [another employee] over the company e-mail system notwithstanding any assurances that such communications would not be intercepted by management …. [B]y intercepting such communications, the company is not … requiring the employee to disclose any personal information about himself or invading the employee’s person or personal effects. Moreover, the company’s interest in preventing inappropriate and unprofessional comments or even illegal activity over its e-mail system outweighs any privacy interest the employee may have in those comments.

Conclusions. This case suggests that employers may not be liable for monitoring employees’ e-mail messages, or for dismissing or disciplining employees on the basis of what they read—even if they assure employees that their e-mail messages are confidential. However, other courts may not agree with this ruling. Church leaders should not monitor employees’ e-mail, or dismiss employees, on the basis of e-mail messages without the advice of an attorney. Smith v. Pillsbury, 914 F. Supp. (E.D. Pa. 1996).

This article originally appeared in Church Treasurer Alert, May 1996.

Richard R. Hammar is an attorney, CPA and author specializing in legal and tax issues for churches and clergy.

This content is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. "From a Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations." Due to the nature of the U.S. legal system, laws and regulations constantly change. The editors encourage readers to carefully search the site for all content related to the topic of interest and consult qualified local counsel to verify the status of specific statutes, laws, regulations, and precedential court holdings.

ajax-loader-largecaret-downcloseHamburger Menuicon_amazonApple PodcastsBio Iconicon_cards_grid_caretChild Abuse Reporting Laws by State IconChurchSalary Iconicon_facebookGoogle Podcastsicon_instagramLegal Library IconLegal Library Iconicon_linkedinLock IconMegaphone IconOnline Learning IconPodcast IconRecent Legal Developments IconRecommended Reading IconRSS IconSubmiticon_select-arrowSpotify IconAlaska State MapAlabama State MapArkansas State MapArizona State MapCalifornia State MapColorado State MapConnecticut State MapWashington DC State MapDelaware State MapFederal MapFlorida State MapGeorgia State MapHawaii State MapIowa State MapIdaho State MapIllinois State MapIndiana State MapKansas State MapKentucky State MapLouisiana State MapMassachusetts State MapMaryland State MapMaine State MapMichigan State MapMinnesota State MapMissouri State MapMississippi State MapMontana State MapMulti State MapNorth Carolina State MapNorth Dakota State MapNebraska State MapNew Hampshire State MapNew Jersey State MapNew Mexico IconNevada State MapNew York State MapOhio State MapOklahoma State MapOregon State MapPennsylvania State MapRhode Island State MapSouth Carolina State MapSouth Dakota State MapTennessee State MapTexas State MapUtah State MapVirginia State MapVermont State MapWashington State MapWisconsin State MapWest Virginia State MapWyoming State IconShopping Cart IconTax Calendar Iconicon_twitteryoutubepauseplay