Abstract
This paper explores electronic workplace monitoring in light of the USA PATRIOT Act—federal legislation with a national security focus that expands the likelihood of electronic workplace monitoring to assist government investigators. The paper examines federal laws that cover the privacy rights of at-will employees in the context of electronic workplace monitoring, including recent cases that have narrowed employee privacy rights. The paper argues that business justifications for electronic workplace monitoring have been bolstered by national security concerns, resulting in decreased expectations of privacy in the workplace for at-will employees. There are persuasive arguments that employers should exercise restraint in the use of information obtained through electronic monitoring in discipline and discharge decisions related to at-will employees. These arguments in favor of exercising restraint flow from the text of the USA PATRIOT Act and consider the risk of discrimination lawsuits.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C.S. § § 621 et seq.(1967).
American Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. United States (American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S.), 123, S.Ct 165(Mem), 155 L.Ed.Zd 309, 2003 WL 1447870 (2003).
American Management Survey (2001). Workplace monitoring & surveillance. Retrieved October 11, 2002, from http://www.amanet.org/research/archives.htm
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.S. § § 12101 et seq.(1990).
Anderson, M. R. (2002). Identifying internet activity, computer forensics goes to cyber space. Retrieved April 4, 2003, from http://www.forensics-intl.com/artipfl.html
Bohach v. City of Reno, 932 F. Supp 1232 (D. Nev. 1996).
Borland, J. (2002). Employers crack down on workplace downloads, ZDNet News. Retrieved April 4, 2003, from http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-961262.html
Briggs v. American Air Filter Co., 630 F.2d 414 (5th Cir. 1980).
Cinquegrana, R. J., & Harper, R. M. (2002). The USA PATRIOT Act: Affects on American employers and businesses. Boston Bar Journal, 46, 10-16.
Computer Forensics Defined (2002). New Technologies, Inc.Retrieved April 4, 2003, from http://www.forensics-intl.com/def4.html
Cottone, E. R. (2002). Employee protection from unjust discharge: A proposal for judicial reversal of the terminable-at-will doctrine. Santa Clara Law Review, 42, 1259.
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1984, Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848 (Title I of the ECPA amended the Wiretap Act of 1968 and is codified at 18 U.S.C.S. § § 2510 et seq.; Title II of the ECPA created the Stored Communications Act and is codified at 18 U.S.C.S. § § 2701-2711).
Epilepsy Foundation of Northeast Ohio, 331 N.L.R.B. No. 92, 2000 WL 967066 (2000), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 268 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2356 (June 10, 2002).
Evans, J. C. (2002). Hijacking civil liberties: The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal, 33, 959-964.
Firestone, D. (2002, November 20). Senate Votes, 90-9, to set up homeland security department geared to fight terrorism. The New York Times, p. A1. Retrieved April 4, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com
Fischer v. Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, 207 F. Supp.2d 914, 922, 928 (W.D. Wis. 2002).
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, 50 U.S.C.S. § § 1801 et seq.(2002).
Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425 (1973).
Fraser v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 135 F. Supp.2d 623 (E.D. Pa. 2001
Frayer, C. E. (2002). Employee privacy and internet monitoring: Balancing workers' rights and dignity with legitimate management interests. Business Lawyer, 47, 858-859.
Garner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 913 P.2d 377, 1996 Wash. LEXIS 109 (1996).
Garrity v. John Hancock Mut. Life. Ins. Co., 2002 WL 974676 at *1 (D. Mass. 2002).
Hé bert, L. C. (2002). Methods and extent of employer use of electronic monitoring and surveillance. Employee Privacy Law, 1, Section 8A:1.
Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C.S. § § 101 et seq.(2002).
In Re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 Consolidated With 02-002–On Motions For Review of Orders of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court(NOS. 02-662 AND 02-968) (In Re: Sealed Case, U. S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review), 310 F3d 717, 2002 WL 31546991 (F.I.S.Ct. November 18, 2002).
Kane, B. P. (2001). 1984 in 2001: Monitoring employee e-mail usage. Advocate (Idaho), 44, 20.
Kesan, J. P. (2002). Cyber-working or cyber-shrinking?: A first principles examination of electronic privacy in the workplace. Florida Law Review, 54, 296.
Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, 302 F.3d 868, 870 (9th Cir. 2002).
Leahy, M. C. M. (2002). Recovery and reconstruction of electronic mail as evidence. American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts 41, 1. (3d.)
Leonard, A. S. (1988). A new common law of employment termination. North Carolina Law Review, 66, 631.
McLaren v. Microsoft Corporation, 1999 WL 339015 (Tex. App. 1999) (unpublished opinion).
National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 29 U.S.C.S. § 151-169 (2002).
Net Threat Analyzer (2002). New Technologies, Inc.Retrieved April 4, 2003, from http://www.forensics-intl.com/nta.html
Railway Labor Act of 1926, 45 U.S.C.S. § § 151-188 (2002).
Rogers, A. (2002). You got mail but your employer does too: Electronic communication and privacy in the 21st century workplace. Journal of Technology Law and Policy, 5, 1.
Rothstein, L. E. (2000). Privacy or dignity: Electronic monitoring in the workplace. New York Law Journal of International and Comparative Law, 19, 379.
Smyth v. Pillsbury Co., 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Service, 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994).
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d (2002).
Topolski, D. M., & Palewicz, A. W. (2002). Employee privacy rights in the electronic workplace. Maryland Bar Journal, 35, 40-45.
Towns, D. M., (2002). Legal issues involved in monitoring employees' internet and e-mail usage. GigaLaw.com. Retrieved April 4, 2003, from http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2002/towns-2002-01.html
United States Government Accounting Office (2002). Employee privacy, computer-use monitoring practices and policies of selected companies. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives. Retrieved April 4, 2003, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02717.pdf
U. S. v. Freitas, 800 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1986).
U.S. v. Simmons, 206 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2000).
U. S. v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990).
USA Patriot Act, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (October 26, 2001
Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th cir. 1983
147 Cong. Rec. S10990 (daily ed. Oct. 25, 2001) (statement of Sen. Leahy; The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot) Act of 2001, H.R. 3162, Section-by-Section Analysis).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
King, N.J. Electronic Monitoring to Promote National Security Impacts Workplace Privacy. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 15, 127–147 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024713424863
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024713424863