Stengart v. Loving Care

NJ Decision on Monitoring of Employee Email


The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled on the appeal and found that the employee

“could reasonably expect that e-mail communications with her lawyer through her personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail account would remain private, and that sending and receiving them using a company laptop did not eliminate the attorney-client privilege that protected them.”

The court’s decision focused on two areas: the adequacy of the company’s notice in its computer use policy and the importance of attorney-client privilege.

The court was not swayed by the company’s arguments about its computer use policy. The company took the position that its employees have no expectation of privacy in their use of company computers based on its Policy. The court found that the policy did not address personal email accounts at all and therefore had no express notice that the accounts would be subject to monitoring. Also, the policy did not warn employees that the contents of the emails could be stored on a hard drive and retrieved by the company.

The bigger problem was that the communications between attorneys and their client are held to a higher standard. They were not “illegal or inappropriate material” stored on the company’s equipment that could harm the company. The e-mails warned the reader directly that the e-mails are personal, confidential, and may be attorney-client communications.

In my opinion, the nature and content of these emails made this an easy decision for the court.

The decision does not mean that a company cannot monitor or regulate the use of workplace computers.

* A policy should be clear that employees have no expectation of privacy in their use of company computers.

* A policy needs to explicitly not address the use of personal, web-based e-mail accounts accessed # through company equipment.

* A policy should warn employees that the contents of e-mails sent via personal accounts can be forensically retrieved and read by the the company.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

Reference Info:Decision | State, 3rd Circuit, New Jersey | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Doug Cornelius | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.