Intersting case of employee's expectation of privacy

[Monsterlover]

As in court case. . .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124045009224646091.html

[bluemoco]

They used the word 'murky' to describe the employees' rights to online privacy.  That's a good choice of words.   

It's a mistake to assume that anything you type online is somehow private.  Whether you're on a password-protected chat site or not, a website is still pretty much the public domain, IMO.  It's not like the employers are tapping their employees' home phone lines and eavesdropping on a truly private conversation.  The case is arguing about commentary made in a semi-public discussion group with multiple members, and I think the employees' privacy claim will come up short.

But I'm not a judge or lawyer, so my opinion is really not that valuable.     

[NAKID]

My opinion? If it was a private site that required a log-in and password to see what was being written, they broke the law by forcing the other employee to give up her log-in information. This was not an arbitrary post on Facebook for all to see, this was a restricted site which they accessed illegally. The company had no right to the information and the employees were fired as a result of that information. The company (as a whole) is liable for wrongful termination. Again, IMO...

[JEFF_H]

done on work time, with work's computers?
oh, and doing things that would get them fired if done openly at work??

they're boned.

[Buckethead]

done on work time, with work's computers? Not according to the article.
oh, and doing things that would get them fired if done openly at work?? Yes, but again, not on company time or assets.

[bluemoco]

Regardless of the outcome of this specific case, it's very naive to assume that online chat forums are somehow 'private' communication. 

This particular case probably hinges on the hostess who might claim she was coerced into giving up her login info under an implied threat of termination.

[NAKID]

If you read the article, it wasn't an "online forum" it was a private, log-in and password required "group" on Myspace...

[bluemoco]

If you read the article, it wasn't an "online forum" it was a private, log-in and password required "group" on Myspace...

Yes, I read the article.  I still maintain that posting negative commentary about your employer on a website (password access or no) is flirtation with disaster.  Once Ms. St. John showed the private Myspace group site to her manager, it became a slippery slope.

From the article:
"The supervisors were tipped off to the forum by Karen St. Jean, a restaurant hostess, who logged into her account at an after-hours gathering with a Houston's manager to show him the site. They all had a laugh, Ms. St. Jean said in a court deposition, and she didn't think any more about it."

IMO, the only remaining question is how the court/jury will view the managers' use of Ms. St. Jean's login info.

[swampduc]

Well, I'm not an attorney, but what if the employees had a private party where they badmouthed their supervisors, and one employee, out of spite or coercion, taped the others and the business fired them. Far-fetched, I know, but would it be ok for a business to do that? Seems like a near equivalent to me.

[il d00d]

I don't understand how the grounds for termination was in any way legal, if the violation of "positivity and professionalism" occurred off the clock.  Even if they wanted to make the case for libel, they would first have to prove how coercion to get access to that site was legal or even reasonable.  And even if the password info was volunteered, it seems to be that the burden to prove that whatever was written on that site was damaging (that is, the whole world could read it, and thought worse of the restaurant for it) is on the restaurant.

I disagree about the legal expectation of privacy.  Technically, we all know (or should know) that if it is in 1s and 0s it can be decoded.  There should be no technical expectation of *security*  Locking your front door does not guarantee that no one can break in, but it definitely means the general public can't come wandering in.

The intent in putting together their little online pregnant dog party was to keep it to a private group - password-protected, invite-only means exclusive to the public.  In my eyes they did what they needed to do to keep any of their grievances from making their employer look bad - that is the only way I see it would be right to fire them for their online, off-the-clock conduct.

[superjohn]

I've stopped making any comments on threads regarding my employee for just such a reason. I don't want anything to be misconstrued.

[Popeye the Sailor]

There is a reason if you google me, you get absolutely nothing. 

[Monsterlover]

Nothing comes up on me either.

If google can't find me, does that mean I don't exist?!?!

[Drunken Monkey]

We have an explicit company policy against online "leaks" as well as a "weasel worded" policy that implies we shouldn't badmouth the company online. The fact is that in most of the US you can fire someone for just about anything except so called "protected classifications" (Race, religion, age, etc.)

In this case however, it's pretty clear cut: They illegally impersonated a user of a private board. If this was an "invitation only" board, they are doubly wrong. It's the equivalent of donning a disguise to enter a private club in order to spy on the patrons.

That fact that it's a virtual private club makes no difference.

[Sinister]

In this case however, it's pretty clear cut: They illegally impersonated a user of a private board. If this was an "invitation only" board, they are doubly wrong. It's the equivalent of donning a disguise to enter a private club in order to spy on the patrons.

This is not true.  The restaurant management was invited to view the board by one of its participants (Ms. St. John). 

The two individuals who were fired are naive and stupid.