In December we posted a link to an article about whether an employee who corresponded with her lawyer through her personal e-mail account on a company-owned laptop was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The employee was an Executive at a nursing agency in NJ who filed suit against her company, alleging sexual harassment and ethnic discrimination. The employer stated that they had reserved the right to look at “all matters on the company’s media systems” in its computer policy. The case being considered centers on whether the company’s computer policy carries more weight than lawyer codes of professional conduct, which govern attorney-client privileges.
The Supreme Court of NJ ruled on Tuesday that the company was not permitted to view her web based emails due to attorney-client privileges. The state’s high court found the company’s policy regarding e-mail use to be vague and noted it said “occasional personal use is permitted.”
“The policy does not address personal accounts at all,’’ the decision said.” The policy does not warn employees that the contents of such e-mails are stored on a hard drive and can be forensically retrieved.’’
We have worked several corporate cases where we were governed by attorney-client privileges. We were not permitted to view or produce any emails/files as per the agreement. This ruling will greatly affect companies and the computer policies they put in place. Companies must be very explicit in their policies when it comes to what employees are allowed to do on a work issued computer and the company must specifically state what information, if any, is protected as labeled as private/not viewable by the company.
We feel that whenever an employee is issued a work computer, that employee gives up his right to privacy on anything he does on that computer. While we feel it’s implied, other legal precedents must be set in order to standardize the proper usage of company issued computers. Our stance is that we feel the company was in the right to read the personal emails, but since the policy was vague and open to interpretation, the Supreme Court was left with no other decision than to side with the Plaintiff.
This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to legal rulings in the digital world.
We welcome any comments about this case, which can be found HERE