Michael Smyth vs. Pillsbury Company. Essay Example for Free

Michael Smyth vs. Pillsbury Company. EssaySTYLE Michael Smyth vs. Pillsbury Company.COURT United States District Court of Pennsylvania.CITATION 914 F. Supp. 97 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 776 131 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58, 104 11 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 585. ISSUE Can an employer be criminate of violating public policy, tortuously invading privacy and subsequently be estopped from firing or discharging an at will employee, if for the purpose of companys interest, it monitor an employees email communications over the companys email system just to find them contrary to companys interest? FACTS plaintiff, a theater director at defendants company had work email account with access from home. Plaintiff was assured by defendant that email communication is surreptitious and confidential with no messages being intercepted and used employment termination.Plaintiff in reliance to promise to its detriment used work email system to cause threatening email comments with supervisor was intercepted and empl oyment was terminated. Court ruled in favor of Defendant as it was not evident if termination threatened or violated a clear mandate of public policy or Plaintiffs common law right to privacy. HOLDING An employer cannot be charge for violating public policy, privacy and/or discharging an employee according to restatement definition of tort of intrusion upon seclusion. LAW Restatement (Second) of Torts 652B Liability only attaches when the intrusion is substantial and would be highly unsavory to the ordinary. Unless an employee identifies a specific expression of public policy violated by his discharge, it will not be labelled as wrongful and within the range of public policy.EXPLANATION The clear mandate of public policy must strike at the heart of a citizens social right, duties and responsibilities. Plaintiff was not fired for serving on jury duty, for prior conviction or for reporting violation of federal regulations to NRC. Plaintiffs alleged unprofessional communication ove r email system utilized by entire company diminishes expectation of privacy. Plaintiff was not asked to disclose personal information by defendant. JUDGEMENT The motion of the defendant to dismiss was granted. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice