Michael Smyth vs. Pillsbury Company. Essay

STYLE 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 accused of violating public insurance policy, tortuously invading silence 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 everywhere the companys email system just to find them contrary to companys interest? FACTS Plaintiff, a manager at suspects company had work email account with access from home. Plaintiff was assured by defendant that email communication is private and confidential with no messages being intercepted and used employment termination.Plaintiff in reliance to promise to its detriment used work email system to make threatening email comments with supervisor was intercepted and employment was terminated. Court ruled in favor of Defe ndant 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 accused 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 offensive to the ordinary. Unless an employee identifies a peculiar(prenominal) expression of public policy violated by his discharge, it will not be labelled as wrongful and within the sphere 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 fire for serving on jury duty, for prior conviction or for reporting violation of federal regulations to NRC. Plaintiffs alleged unprofessional communication over email system utilized by entire comp any diminishes expectation of privacy. Plaintiff was not asked to disclose personal information by defendant. JUDGEMENT The inquiry of the defendant to dismiss was granted. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice