New Case Protects Privacy of Text Messages

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case entitled Quon v. Arch Wireless, held that text messages stored on the server of a cellular provider cannot be disclosed to an employer subscriber without the consent of the employee that is using the text messaging device.

To employers, this means, that unless you store text messages and instant messages on your company owned server, the employee will be able to assert they are entitled to privacy rights to the content of those text messages. Based on the tenor of this case, employers should consider altering their Internet usage, email, text and voice communications policies to provide that an employee, by using any company owned property or company provided service, consents to a review of any content of any communication including content that is stored by third party vendors. Since consent is being obtained, it would be of benefit to have the employee sign the consent.

To those of my readers that work for governmental agencies, the Quon case also creates a 4th Amendment protection in the content of text messages held on the servers of third party providers. To read this case, click here.

Nothing in this Blog should be consider legal advice or to form an attorney client relationship. In the event you have a legal matter, you are urged to contact an attorney who can address your particular legal matter.

March Madness and Your Business

According to the outplacement firm, Challenger, Gray and Christmas, during the next few weeks of March Madness, employers could see $1.7 billion in lost productivity. This productivity loss extends to employee participation in office pools, to employees that will spend up to 30 minutes of work time completing sports brackets to employees using work time to watch streaming video of games while using up their employer’s bandwidth. Following the Super Bowl, March Madness interferes with employee productivity more than any other sports event.

Technology has made it much easier for employees to abuse work time by following their favorite sports event. In years past, employees would have to duck out to a local sports bar to watch the game. These employees did not have the ability to download March Madness screen savers from questionable websites,access on-line gambling sites via the Internet, or download streaming video.

Some employers chalk off the loss of employee productivity and misuse of company resources as a cost of doing business. While this approach may be the path of least resistance, it is not without attendant risk. Employers that turn a blind eye to abuse of work time and company resources may find they inadvertently have created the perception that members of one gender are receiving preferential treatment, as well as, undercutting handbook policies that govern email and Internet usage.

March Madness, and similar events, may provide an opportunity to communicate your expectations to your workforce. This time can be used to refresh their memories of company policies governing misuse of time, email, Internet usage, participation in listservs and Blogs, and downloading. The benefit to be derived is twofold. First, it will require you to blow the dust off of those policies and determine whether they require updating. Second, by bringing these policies to the attention of your workforce, they, in turn, will not be able to complain when those policies are enforced.

The Bottom Line: Many workplace problems can be avoided by careful and regular communication of expectations to your workforce. Repetition has it’s benefits. Consider the Head On advertisement. I don’t need to repeat that annoying advertisement to make my point. The same holds true with workplace policies. You should not assume that your employees remember key points of your handbook policies. Periodic reminders to your workforce can make minimize future problems.

Nothing in this Blog should be considered legal advice or to form the basis of an attorney client relationship. Every legal matter can turn on specific facts. Nothing can substitute for the advice of a seasoned legal professional.