Michael Smyth vs. Pillsbury Company. Essay

STYLE Michael Smyth vs. Pillsbury Company.COURT United States regularise 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 impeach of violating public policy, tortuously invading privacy and subsequently be estopped from firing or discharging an at will employee, if for the purpose of accompanys interest, it monitor an employees electronic mail communications over the companys e-mail system just to find them contrary to companys interest? FACTS plaintiff, a manager at defendants company had work email account with access from home. complainant was assured by defendant that email communication is private and confidential with no messages macrocosm intercepted and used employment termination.Plaintiff in reliance to promise to its mischief used work email system to make threatening email comments with supervisor was intercepted and employment was terminated. Court ruled in favo r of suspect as it was not evident if termination threatened or go against a clear authorisation 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 aggression upon seclusion. LAW Restatement (Second) of Torts 652B Liability only attaches when the intrusion is substantial and would be super offensive to the ordinary. Unless an employee identifies a specific expression of public policy go against by his discharge, it will not be labelled as illegitimate 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 fired for serving on jury duty, for prior conviction or for reporting violation of national regulations to NRC. Plaintiffs alleged unprofessional communication over email system utilize d by entire company diminishes expectation of privacy. Plaintiff was not asked to disclose personal information by defendant. JUDGEMENT The crusade of the defendant to dismiss was granted. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice