Employee Rights Post : Ellen Simon's Employee Rights Post : Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Workplace Discrimination & Harassment Advice & Consultations

Employee Gets Trial on Title VII Retaliation Claim

What happens when an employee in a sensitive position complains about discrimination and immediately gets fired because the company claims the employee might use her position to sabotage the business?

It’s a defense that is appealing to many judges, but not one that can be taken at face value according to the case of Alvarez v. Royal Atlantic Developers  decided by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals last week.

What Happened In The Case

Eliuth Alvarez, a Cuban-American, worked as a controller for Royal Atlantic Developers, a Miami based real estate development company owned by the Verdezoto family. The Verdezotos also own Royal Flowers International.  Edwin Verdezoto is CEO of Royal Atlantic and President of Royal Flowers. Heidi Verdezoto, his sister,  is CFO of both companies. The two companies have over 50 employees.

Alvarez had eighteen years of experience in accounting, auditing, and controllership at the time she arrived at the company. Alvarez reported to the Chief Financial Officer, Heidi Verdezoto.

By all accounts Heidi Verdezoto was impossible to please. Alvarez’s two predecessors were fired by her within two to three months of their hiring because they failed to meet her standards.

Alvarez suffered the same fate.  About four months after she was hired, the Verdezotos decided to fire her but wait until a replacement was found before the termination was to take place.

Alvarez got wind of the plan and wrote a letter of protest to her bosses, complaining, among other things, about what she believed to be discrimination against her because of her national origin. The Verdezotos read the letter and fired Alvarez the next morning because of it.

Alvarez filed a lawsuit in federal court in Florida claiming discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The company defended by claiming that Alvarez did not prove discrimination because of her national origin and that she was fired because of poor performance.

Regarding the retaliation claim, the company claimed there was no causal connection between Alvarez’s letter and her firing because she was going to be fired anyway. In addition, the company claimed that even if her letter of complaint was a factor in the firing, it had a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for firing her immediately, specifically because:

• it would be "awkward" and "counterproductive" for Alvarez to remain in the office after she expressed such unhappiness with the job
  

• it feared that she might use her position as controller to sabotage the company’s operations

The district court granted judgment in favor of the company. On the discrimination claim, it found that Alvarez did not show that she was replaced by a non-Cuban or that similarly situated non-Cubans were treated more favorably than she had been. On the retaliation claim, the court concluded that the company offered legitimate reasons for firing Alvarez. Alvarez appealed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here are two Short Takes about some interesting age discrimination cases that made the news this month:

Forced Retirement At Age 70 Is Illegal

Nini v. Mercer County Community College: Rose Nini was a Dean at Mercer Community College from 1982 until 2005 when her contract expired and was not renewed. She was 73 years old at the time.

According to Nini, the college President, Dr. Robert Rose:

• complimented her on her performance but “made it very clear to [her] that he thought [she] had no right to be working at [her] age”

• said that employees of her age were considering retirement and suggested she should consider taking early retirement too

•  told her that people who have been in a job for twenty-five years "lose their effectiveness." 

• told her that it was her last chance to get an early retirement and leave with dignity.

• held meetings with department heads in which he made jokes about getting rid of older employees

• held meetings where several people discussed “age and incompetence and being dead wood”

Nini also stated that she heard from another employee that College Human Relations Director Vanessa Wilson said the College had to "get rid of old-timers and bring in new blood."

The lower court granted judgment in favor of the college holding that the college did not violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination because the statute allows an employer to refuse to renew an employment contract of an employee over seventy years of age. The Court of Appeals reversed and the the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed in an opinion issued on June 1^st holding that refusing to renew contracts for employees over the age of 70 because of their age violates the New Jersey’s age discrimination laws.

In other words, the failure to renew a contract because of age is equivalent to a termination -- not a failure to hire --according to the New Jersey Supreme Court. This case is good news for the many employees who are employed with contracts that are renewed year to year, or at the end of a certain term, particularly in states with statutory exceptions in discrimination laws similar to New Jersey’s.

Employees Replaced By Younger Individuals Can Prove Age Discrimination In Workforce Reduction Case

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Tin, Inc.:  The EEOC announced last week that Tin, Inc., a manufacturing plant in Glendale, Arizona will pay $250,000 to settle a discrimination case filed by three employees who claimed they were fired because of their age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.(ADEA).

The settlement follows a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in October that reversed summary judgment in favor of Tin and sent the case back to the district Court for trial.

According to the opinion, one of the plaintiffs, Neal, was replaced by an individual 15 years younger as plant manager. The EEOC provided evidence that Neal never received a negative performance review and in fact was told by his supervisors that they were satisfied with his performance.

The company contended that Neal’s younger replacement was better qualified because a facility he had run was profitable.

Interestingly, the Court stated that “the fact that a facility was profitable under one manager and not another does not mean that the two managers qualifications differed.” In addition, according to the Court, there was little evidence of the replacement's success at the plants in question. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held, the district court erred in granting summary judgment against Neal since material facts were in dispute.

The other two plaintiffs, McGraw and Vanecko, positions were terminated because their positions were eliminated according to Tin.  In order to establish an inference of discrimination in this type of case, the Court stated,  the plaintiff is entitled to show “that the employer had a continuing need for the employee’s skills and services in that his various duties were still being performed.”

The evidence showed that McGraw’s logistics manager duties were redistributed to the production manger and sales manager who were 20 and 23 years younger. It also showed that  Vanecko’ s plant controller duties were given to someone 24 years younger.

In addition, the EEOC presented evidence that the two supervisors with decision making authority over all three plaintiffs made comments from which a jury could find “that they harbored animus towards older workers.” Therefore, the Court concluded that the EEOC provided sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that age was the “but –for” cause of the terminations.

The opinion helps explain the kind of evidence that is useful in proving age discrimination in the often difficult cases of job elimination and workforce reduction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Harassing Conduct Need Not Be Sexual To Prove Hostile Environment Claim

When does rude conduct in the workplace support a hostile environment sexual harassment claim? The First Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this important issue in the case of Rosario v. The Department of the Army decided last week and you can bet it’s going to make a big difference in sexual harassment cases down the road.

 What Happened In The Case

Ruth Rosario, a civilian employee, worked at the Rodriguez Army Heath Clinic in Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico as a medical records technician. Her duties included checking patients in and maintaining computerized medical records. 

Rosario worked along side Ivan Arroyo who performed similar duties and trained her. According to the evidence, Arroyo was abusive to Rosario and others on a daily basis.

He threw medical records around, threw personal items in the garbage, disparaged co-workers with derogatory names and made racial comments. According to Rosario, Arroyo:

• Constantly criticized her clothes as too revealing
  

• Constantly talked about her underwear
  

• Walked behind her and made faces as he looked at the person she was talking to
  

• Complained about the way she would “walk, move, and talk”
  

• Would get men together to Rosario’s area where they would “meet, and talk, and then point at her and laugh”

Rosario complained to her supervisor, but the conduct continued.  About a year after the harassment began, Arroyo became Rosario’s supervisor.

Arroyo continued to criticize and mock Rosario and respond to her in ways she found humiliating. According to Rosario, Arroyo watched whatever she was doing or saying and challenged every decision she made. He told her she was fat, had delinquent children, and told her co-workers that she dressed like a “woman of the streets.” Rosario also presented evidence of sexually oriented jokes Arroyo got from the computer which he talked about and passed around.

As a result of Arroyo’s behavior Rosario felt uncomfortable every day, did not want to go to work, became depressed, started losing her hair, experienced panic attacks, and was eventually hospitalized. She needed psychiatric treatment, medication, and attributed the breakup of her marriage to her situation at work.

Rosario filed a formal discrimination complaint with the Army’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office. The agency found against her.

The Lower Court Rules Against Rosario

At the conclusion of the Army’s EEO proceedings, Rosario filed a lawsuit alleging gender and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  After dropping the national origin claim, the Federal District Court ruled on Rosario’s gender-based hostile work environment claim and found against her.

The court held that the record showed “Mr. Arroyo [to be] a rude man that lacked courtesy and professionalism,” but the evidence was inadequate to prove a violation of Title VII. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Rosario appealed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here are a few Short Takes worth sharing:

Sex Bias Case Ends With Huge Punitive Damages Award

The drug maker Novartis was hit with $250 million in punitive damages last week because of discrimination against thousands of female sales representatives. Issues involved discrimination in pay, promotion and pregnancy. The punitive damages award represented 2.6 of the company’s 2009 $9.5 billion revenue. Earlier in the week, the jury awarded $3.3 million dollars in compensatory damages to 12 of the women who testified. The case is reported to be the largest discrimination verdict ever.  

Genetics Discrimination

Complaints were filed against MX Energy, a Connecticut natural gas retailer, under Title II of  Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits genetic information discrimination in employment. The new federal law took effect on November 21, 2009.

GINA prohibits discrimination against employees or applicants because of genetic information. GINA also restricts acquisition of genetic information by employers and other entities covered by Title II, and strictly limits the disclosure of genetic information.

The charging party Pamela Fink, claims that her employer fired her, despite years of glowing evaluations, after learning she tested positive for the breast cancer gene. Fink filed complaints against her employer with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. About 90 GINA-related complaints have been filed nationwide since the law went into effect. This should be an interesting case to follow. For more about genetic discrimination, read here.

Rights Of Undocumented Workers

With all the talk about illegal immigration, one might wonder what the rights are of the over eight million undocumented workers in this country. Carolina Nunez, a law professor at Brigham Young University's Reuben Clark Law School, wrote an interesting article about the topic which you can read here.  The piece appeared in the Spring 2010 issue  of the Clark Memorandum, a publication of BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School.

Should undocumented workers enjoy the same workplace protections that authorized workers enjoy? When and how much should immigration status matter? Does being here count for anything? It is no surprise that the answers are less than clear.

Recent Cases Of Interest From The Circuits

Plaintiff Wins FMLA Appeal: In Goelzer v. Sheboygan County, Wisconsin  Dorothy Goelzer was fired from her administrative job with the county government after 20 years. Her supervisor told her about the termination decision two weeks before she was scheduled to begin two months of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Goelzer had taken a significant amount of authorized FMLA during the four preceding years to deal with her own health issues as well as those of her husband and mother. The defendants claimed she was fired because they wanted to hire someone with a “greater skill set.” The district court granted judgment against Goelzer.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this month stating that comments suggesting frustration with her use of leave, Goelzer’s favorable performance reviews, and the timing of her termination could lead a jury to conclude that Goelzer was fired because she exercised her right to take FMLA. This is a very good case for those who are claiming an interference or retaliation claim under the FMLA.

Employers Liable For Third Party Harassment: In Beckford v. Department of Corrections, Melanie Beckford, and thirteen other female employees, claimed that the Florida Department of Corrections failed to remedy the sexually offensive conduct of inmates  -- including the frequent use of gender-specific abusive language and pervasive gunning, the notorious practice of inmates openly masturbating toward female staff. The jury found in favor the plaintiffs and awarded each $45,000 in damages.

The Department appealed and contended that it could not be liable under Title VII unless its staff actively encouraged or participated in the harassment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the verdict and concluded that the jury was entitled to find the Department liable because it unreasonably failed to remedy the sexual harassment by its inmates. The Court said:

It is well established that employers may be liable for failing to remedy the harassment of employees by third parties who create a hostile environment. …It makes no difference whether the person whose acts are complained of is an employee, an independent contractor, or for that matter a customer.

Employees are often harassed at work by individuals who are not employees. This case, which holds that employers are liable for harassment by third parties, is an important affirmation of this particular aspect of employer liability under Title VII.

images: www.hivplusmag.com      charityrisk.squarespace.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here are a few Short Takes worth sharing:

Sex Discrimination

Ninth Circuit Certifies Wal-Mart Class Action: In Dukes v. Wal-Mart, a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 26^th, the Court certified a class in a Title VII lawsuit involving 1.5 million women seeking compensation for back pay. The Court remanded the case to the district court for a determination regarding punitive damages based upon several factors set forth in the decision. The next step is most likely a request for the Supreme Court to hear the case. For more about the case, see the California Punitive Damages Blog.  For an interesting story about Betty Dukes, the Wal-Mart greeter and lead plaintiff  see the article here from the Huffington Post. This case is reported to be the largest class action in history.

Sexual Harassment

EEOC Collects $471,000 In Sex Harassment Case: The EEOC reported last week that Everdry Marketing and Management paid $471,096 in damages, plus $86,581 in post-judgment interest to 13 victims of sexual harassment. The payout stems from a four week jury trial in Rochester, New York and a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision which affirmed the award in favor of the plaintiffs. The case involved a prolonged period of physical and verbal sexual harassment of mostly teenage telemarketers by male managers and co-workers at Everdry’s Rochester, N.Y. location including demands for sex, groping, sexual jokes and constant comments about the bodies of women employees. The story presents another example of the widespread problem of teenage sexual harassment in the U.S

Has The Sixth Circuit Had An Attitude Adjustment?

Two cases last month out of the Sixth Circuit  Court of Appeals made me think that attitudes on employment discrimination cases may be shifting.

Summary Judgment Reversed In Race Discrimination Case: In Thompson v UHHSS Richmond Heights Hospital, Inc, the plaintiff was terminated from her position as a food production supervisor when she was told that her position was eliminated in a restructuring. Thompson believed  that she was selected for termination because of her race and filed a lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment against her. The Sixth Circuit reversed finding that evidence of Thompson’s superior qualifications in comparison to the employee who assumed most of her job duties showed that she was replaced and also showed pretext. In addition, evidence that a supervisor said to “get rid of” certain black employees whom he called “troublemakers,"  which the district court gave “little weight," corroborated accusations of discriminatory behavior according to the Court.

Sexual Harassment Verdict Affirmed On Appeal: In West v. Tyson Foods,Inc. the Court affirmed a sexual harassment award including $750,000 for past and future mental distress, and $300,000 in punitive damages. In addition to great language on damages, the Court also addressed the sufficiency of reporting sexual harassment to one supervisor as constituting “notice” and a “missing evidence” jury instruction from which the jury is entitled to draw a negative inference. The plaintiff, an assembly line worker, was subjected to a barrage of verbal and physical harassment – 10 to 15 times per shift -- during her five weeks of employment at the Tyson Foods plant in Robards, Kentucky. The jury awarded more in damages that West's lawyer requested which the Sixth Circuit both addressed and confirmed.

 images: www.hickmankytourism.com

                www.reclaimdemocracy.org

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hearings Held On Federal Discrimination Bill To Overturn Gross Decision

Last week, both the House and Senate held hearings on the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA) (H.R. 3721, S. 1756). The legislation would overturn the awful Gross v. FBL Financials Services, Inc. case decided by the Supreme Court last year. If passed,  the bill will apply retroactively to all cases pending on or after June 17, 2009, the date of the Gross decision.

Simply stated, the Gross decision holds age discrimination plaintiffs to a higher standard of proof than other victims of discrimination by requiring them to prove that their age was the “but for” cause of the employer's adverse decision instead of  "a motivating factor." I predicted, as did others, that Gross would get a Congressional fix and that’s exactly what POWADA does – and more.

For one, POWADA allows the plaintiff to win an age discrimination case by proving that:

(A) an impermissible factor under the Act (the discrimination statute) was a motivating factor for the practice complained of  -- even if other factors also motivated the practice, or

(B) the practice complained of would not have occurred in the absence of an impermissible factor.

The legislation also establishes that:

• standards of proof for all federal laws forbidding discrimination and retaliation (including whistleblowing) are the same

• the plaintiff can choose the method of proof for the case, including the McDonnell Douglas framework

• employees can rely on any type or form of admissible circumstantial or direct evidence to prove their discrimination and retaliation cases

The Act explicitly states that the standard for proving unlawful disparate treatment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and other anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws is no different than the standard of proof under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including amendments made by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

In other words, all plaintiffs in discrimination cases will be held to the same standards of proof and will be able to prove their discrimination cases in the same way. While this is most certainly what Congress intended in the first place, it will be very beneficial for all of us who litigate these cases --- and our clients --- to have these evidentiary matters settled once and for all.

image: www.conversantlife.com/files/imagecache/blog_wizard/files/blog_wizard/proof.png

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Court Elaborates On Types Of  Evidence For Proof Of  Discrimination

The recent case of Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight is hands down one of the best decisions I have come across in a long time.

It addresses gender discrimination, sex stereotyping, and a corporate culture of discrimination in a way few cases have. It’s simply a great case for employees – particularly for victims of sex discrimination.

What Happened In The Case

Merritt worked as a line haul truck drive for Old Dominion, a nationwide trucking company. As a line haul driver, Merritt made lengthy cross-country trips. She performed her duties without incident or complaint. At some point, Merritt became interested in becoming a pickup and delivery driver so she could work more regular hours and spend  nights and weekends at home.

To prove that she could do the job, she filled in numerous times as a pickup and delivery driver, and once again performed the duties without incident or complaint.

When a permanent pickup and delivery position became available at Old Dominion’s Lynchburg Virginia terminal, Merritt talked to Bobby Howard, the terminal manager about it. Howard told her that he lacked the authority to fill the position and proceeded to hire a less experienced man for the job.

The following year another permanent pickup and delivery position became available in Lynchburg and Merritt again expressed an interest in the position to Howard. Once again, Merritt was passed over in favor of a less experienced male.

When Merritt asked why she was not hired, Howard told her that :

• it was decided and they could not let a woman have that position.

• the company did not really have women drivers in the city (as pick up and deliver drivers)

On another occasion he told her:

• the Regional VP was worried about hiring a female pickup and deliver driver because women were more injury prone and he was aftaid a female would get hurt

• the VP didn’t think a girl should have that position

Finally, a year later, Old Dominion hired Merritt to fill a permanent Pickup and Delivery position in Lynchburg. Merritt was placed on a ninety-day probationary and told she could lose her job if any performance problems arose. Male drivers were not subject to similar probationary terms.

For the next two years, Merritt performed her Pickup and Delivery duties without a problem. Unfortunately, she then suffered an ankle injury at work which was diagnosed as plantar fascititis with a superimposed strain. She was put on light duty work by her doctor at first, but a couple of months later, he gave her a clean bill of health.

When she attempted to return to her regular duties, Brian Stoddard, Vice President of Safety and Personnel, required Merritt to take a physical ability test (“PAT”), a full-body test divided into six components that evaluates the test taker’s general strength, agility, and cardiovascular endurance. The test was graded on a pass/fail basis. The PAT was created for Old Dominion to be used in the hiring process and had been used to evaluate potential hires, but only on a variable basis.

Merritt struggled with several segments of the test and received a failing grade. According to Merritt, the tasks she had problems with had nothing to do with her ankle. In one portion of the test, for example, Merritt was unable to place a box of weight on an overhead shelf simply because she was too short.

After receiving the results of Merritt’s PAT, Stoddard terminated Merritt’s employment. Merritt filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC and then filed a lawsuit in federal court in Western District of Virginia claiming that Old Dominion terminated her because of her gender in violation of Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The district court granted judgment against Merritt because it found that Old Dominion produced a legitimate reason for firing Merritt (she failed the PAT) and because she had not produced any evidence that Stoddard (the decision maker) harbored any “discriminatory animus” towards Merritt. Merritt appealed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Wage Discrimination Needs Attention And A Legislative Fix

April 20, 2010 is Equal Pay Day. It was established in 1996 to illuminate the gap between men’s and women’s wages. The date symbolizes how far into 2010 women must work to earn what men earned in 2009.

This year, with the support of President Obama, Equal Pay Day should also bring attention to pending legislation intended to address lingering issues of pay disparity in the American workforce.

Here are some facts about pay equity from the National Organization for Women:

• In 2007, women's median annual paychecks reflected only 78 cents for every $1.00 earned by men. Specifically for women of color, the gap is even wider: In comparison to a man's dollar, African American women earn only 69 cents and Latinas just 59 cents. 

• In 1963, when the Equal Pay Act was passed, full-time working women were paid 59 cents on average for every dollar paid to men. This means it took 44 years for the wage gap to close just 19 cents -- a rate of less than half a penny a year.

• The narrowing of this gap has slowed down over the last six years, with women gaining a mere two cents since 2001. 

• Women's median pay was less than men's in each and every one of the 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007. Even men working in female-dominated occupations earn more than women working in those same occupations.

• According to the Institute for Women's Policy Research,  if equal pay for women were instituted immediately, across the board, it would result in an annual $319 billion gain nationally for women and their families (in 2008 dollars).

• When The WAGE Project looked exclusively at full-time workers, they estimated that women with a high school diploma lose as much as $700,000 over a lifetime of work, women with a college degree lose $1.2 million and professional school graduates may lose up to $2 million because of pay disparity.

• As a result, these inequities follow women into their retirement years, reducing their Social Security benefits, pensions, savings and other financial resources.

• A study by the American Association of University Women examined how the wage gap affects college graduates. Wage disparities kick in shortly after college graduation, when women and men should, absent discrimination, be on a level playing field.

• One year after graduating college, women are paid on average only 80 percent of their male counterparts' wages, and during the next 10 years, women's wages fall even further behind, dropping to only 69 percent of men's earnings ten years after college

I have represented women in discrimination cases for many years.  From my vantage point it's clear that while the pay equity issues are not as blatant as they once were, wage discrimination is still a prevalent concern for women of all socio-economic groups.

It's also true that the Equal Pay Act of 1963, while well intentioned, has not come close to fulfilling its goal due to a whole host of reasons.

The good news is that there is a bill pending in Congress aimed at correcting unlawful wage disparities and which offers a legislative fix for some of the problems with the Equal Pay Act.

The Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R.12 and S.182) was introduced January 2009 by then-Senator Hillary Clinton and Rep. Rosa DeLauro to strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The bill expands damages under the Equal Pay Act and amends its very broad fourth affirmative defense which will be a real help to victims of pay discrimination.

The Paycheck Fairness Act also prohibits retaliation against inquiring about or disclosing wage information  and proposes voluntary EEOC guidelines to show employers how to evaluate jobs with the goal of eliminating unfair disparities. The bill was passed by the House in January of 2009 and is pending in the Senate. It's lead sponsor is Sen. Christopher Dodd.

There were hearings about the bill in March of this year with lots of illuminating testimony, including the remarks of Stuart Ishimaru, acting Chariman of the EEOC, which you can read here if you are interested in more detail about the subject.

The bottom line is if you care about equal rights for women and want to make a difference, please call or write your Senator and urge passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. Here's a link that will help you send the message. We know that the President  supports it -- we just need to get it on his desk.

images: www.evetahmincioglu.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Employee's E-Mails To Lawyer On Company Laptop Are Off Limits

The decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency  has a lot  of lawyers talking. The case has to do with the privacy interests of an employee’s personal e-mail on a company computer and the attorney-client privilege.

The reason the case made ripples through the employment law community is because there simply aren’t many decisions on the issue and it hits a topic of real practical concern for both employers and employees.

What Happened In The Case

Marina Stengart worked for Loving Care Agency, Inc. (“Loving Care”), a home health care agency, as an Executive Director of Nursing.  Like many employers, Loving Care provided Stengart a laptop computer for company business. Stengart could send e-mails using her company e-mail account from the laptop and she could also access the Internet through Loving Care’s server. 

In December of 2007, Stengart used her computer to access a personal, password-protected e-mail account on Yahoo’s website to communicate with an attorney about her situation at work. She never saved her Yahoo ID or password on the company laptop.

When she sent the personal e-mails Stengart didn’t know  that Loving Care’s browser software automatically saved a copy of each web page she viewed on the computer’s hard drive in a “cache” folder of temporary Internet files.

Stengart left Loving Care and returned the laptop computer.  A couple of months later, she filed a lawsuit with claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

After the lawsuit was filed, Loving Care hired experts to create a forensic image of the laptop's hard drive. Among the items retrieved were the e-mails Stengart exchanged with her lawyer via the personal Yahoo account.

Loving Care's lawyers used the e-mails in the lawsuit. Stengart’s lawyers demanded that the e-mails be identified and returned. Loving Care’s Lawyers argued that Stengart had no expectation of privacy in light of the company’s electronic communications policy which stated in part:

• Loving Care may review, access, and disclose all matters on the company’s media systems and services at any time

• e-mails, Internet communications and computer files are the company’s business records and are not to be considered private or personal to any individual employee

• occasional personal use of the computer is permitted

Stengart’s lawyers asked the trial court to order a return of the e-mails and disqualification of  Loving Care’s lawyers. The judge denied the request, concluding that Stengart waived the attorney client privilege by sending e-mails on the company computer.

Stenagart appealed.The Court of Appeals reversed.

It  found that Stengart had an expectation of privacy in the e-mails and that Loving Care's lawyers violated the disciplinary rules by failing to alert Stengart's lawyers that they had the e-mails before they read them.

It sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether disqualification of the firm, or some other sanction was appropriate. Loving Care appealed

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks