San Antonio Employment Law Blog : San Antonio Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Thomas Crane Law Firm : South Texas, Bexar County TX Wage & Discrimination Issues

There is a story making the rounds of the internet about a man named Dave who ordered some gaming controllers.  He paid for them and expected to receive a pre-order discount.  Ocean Marketing's Public Relations representative, Paul Christofor, however, had bad news for him.  Paul told Dave via email that he placed an order, the product had to be tweeked, and Dave should just "put on his big boy hat" and wait it out like every one else.  Paul then suggested Dave cancel his order, as Paul could sell the controllers on Ebay for $150 easily.  Paul then added, Have a good day, Dan."

Dave replied, upset and mentioned that Paul displayed poor public relations skills and said he wanted his controllers.  He made it clear his name was Dave and called Paul a b--tch.  

So, Paul responds with a rambling email that says he is 38, has been on the internet since Dave was sperm, and tells Dave he should grow up and do something more productive with his life than play online games.  Dave forwards the email to an online comic strip artist, who Paul had mentioned.  The comic strip artist  said he will cancel Paul's booth at a popular gaming festival.  

Paul responded with more beligerence.  He referred to Dave as "Mike."  Other online contacts learned of Paul's poor marketing skills and tweeted about it.  Paul responded with more caustic comments to them.  And, now, N-Control and Ocean marketing decline to respond to these events.  See story.  

The internet is not for the faint of heart.....

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The female administrator who sent some bawdy emals has resigned.  Donna Laird, the former radiography director for St. Phillip's College quit after an investigation into her sexist, racist and raunchy emails.  See San Antonio Express News report.  I previously discussed her emails and the EEOC complaint by Warren Parker here.  Mr. Parker was supervisied by Ms. Laird.  He received, he says, hundreds of Ms. Laird's emails.  He claimed sex based discrimination when he was denied tenure.  

But, the St. Phillip's investigation found that the emails depicted negative stereotypes of many groups and were sent to men and women, suggesting a lack of bias.  The investigation also indicated that Mr. Parker used some of the emails as "ice breakers" during his classes and his private business seminars.  

Mr. Parker has already been terminated due to his having taken a sick day to do some work on his side business, teaching radiography.  Rebecca Sanchez, former chairwoman of the allied health department has also resigned.  She received many of Ms. Laird's emails and did not object to them, found the investigation. 

Note the issues here.  Racist, sexist emails are never good.  But, if you send them to all genders, all races, the suggestion is a lack of bias.  This is a complicated, risky defense.  But, in theory, a supervisor can escape charges of discrimination if the supervisor is mean to all races and both genders.  ....  Still, the safer approach is just avoid sending racist, sexist emails.  Ms. Laird says she sent the emails to reduce stress at work.  Now, she has ample opportunity to reduce work related stress.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

You would think people would know better, by now.  St. Phillip's College, a junior college, part of the Alamo Community College District system, is investigating an administrator at St. Phillip's for sending hundreds of bawdy emails.  See San Antonio Express News report.  Warren Parker, an instructor at St. Phillip's, filed a complaint with the EEOC about allegedly hundreds of emails sent him by Program Director Donna Laird.  Mr. Parker claims that Ms. Laird cc'ed so many people, including her own supervisors, that he presumed these emails were the norm.  He failed to complain until he was recently turned down for tenure.  Mr. parker claims these emails evidence sexual harassment. 

The Complainant says Ms. Laird has been forwarding these emails to him since he started working at St. Phillip's in 2005.  He retained some 100 of these mails, but claims there have been 400 or more.  The emails include scantily clad vaginas, pictures mocking young blacks dressed up for prom as "ghetto," a woman simulating oral sex on the stick shift of a car, and more.  

For those of you who do not know, you should not forward such emails.  Racy emails contribute nothing to your work and could place you in a position similar to that which Ms. Laird now finds herself.  Not surprisingly, the Express News reporter tried to contact other recipients of the email and could find no one willing to speak to her.  

The day after the Express News published this initial report, St. Phillip's College fired Warren Parker. See San Antonio Express News report.  The letter firing Mr. Parker was apparently mailed before the news report was published.  St. Phillips better have a good reason for the termination.  Anytime an employer fires an employee after they have filed an EEOC charge, the employer needs to have a very good reason.  Without a good reason, the termination will look like retaliation for EEO activity.  

St. Phillip's claims it fired Mr. Parker because he used a sick day to take care of his side-busines, providing education for radiography users.  But, St. Phillip's will need to show that it has fired other employees with similar transgressions.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yes, emails sent from the workplace almost always belong to the employer.  That still seems to be a shock to many employees.  Look at the story of Chris Gonzalez, grandson of a well-known, former San Antonio Congressman.  See San Antonio Express-News story.  Mr. Gonzalez has reportedly been sending harassing emails to a former girlfriend.  He sent them from work.  The girlfriend's employer blocked them from one work computer.  Mr. Gonzalez works at a large district clerk office.  So, he simply used a different work computer.  Apparently, that is when the girlfriend's employer had enough and called the police.  

Mr. Gonzalez has been arrested for a crime known as online harassment.  His employer says Mr. Gonzalez works for him now, but that could change.  I bet it could......

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It was bound to happen sooner or later.  A lawsuit has been filed over the employer's requirement to check email after hours.  More and more employers are issuing Blackberries and their equivalent to employees with the stated or implicit understanding that the employee check email after hours.  Such a requirement runs right into the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires that an employee be paid for time actually worked.  

The FLSA has been around since the 1930's.  The federal statute has plenty of precedent.  We know, for example, that if the employer requires attendance at meetings after hours, then the employer must pay for that time.  So, why would "email" time be any different?  

A Chicago police Sergeant has brought a class action lawsuit against his employer claiming that he was required to use his Blackberry on his own time.  Sgt. Jeff Allen is seeking overtime pay, because he was required to use his city-issued Blackberry after hours.  See report.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Courts have only just started wrestling with the limits of online freedom in the workplace.  A recent decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court provides some guidance.  In the case of Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, the former employee left her job.  She also left behind her employer issued laptop.  On that laptop, she had sent various emails to her lawyer from a private non-work related Yahoo account.  The account was password protected.  But, the employer's experts were able to retrieve the password and review the emails to the lawyer. 

Attorney client communications are, of course, privileged.  The company, Loving Care (or not) had a general policy that employees waived any expectation of privacy when viewing email at work.  But, the policy did not expressly apply to private email accounts and it did not warn employees that their private passwords could be retrieved from a hard drive.   So, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the employer's policy did not apply to password protected private email relating to lawful matters including attorney-client privileged communication.  The emails  between the employee and her lawyer should have remained private, said the court.  The employer violated her expectation of privacy. 

The employer's law firm did review the emails between the employee and her lawyer.  They notified the plaintiff employee but not for many months.  So, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the defense firm violated disciplinary rules.  The court referred the defense firm to the lower court for discipline.  Ouch!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 We love our email.  But, sometimes, email is our undoing.  Ronda Templeton talks about email and its travails in this San Antonio Express-News article.  Of course, she mentions how wise it is to think before you send any email.  Once sent, it is nearly impossible to bring back an email.

Every employee should also understand that if you use the employer's email server for any email, personal or not personal, then the employer probably has the right to look at that email.  

Note her report that 95% of us check our work related email after hours.  Is that time compensable?  If checking email is required by the employer, then time spent doing so will very likely be compensable. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Electronic monitoring in the workplace is still an area of developing law.  It is clear that an employer cannot use bugging devices and phone wiretaps to discourage or monitor union activity.  It is also clear that no one, including employers, can intercept “wire, oral, or electronic communication.”  But, what is  “intercept”?  What does that mean?  For example, several cases have found that retrieving telephone messages dos not constitute an interception of the transmission. 

The most important consideration is the extent to which employers have let employees know they may be monitored.  If employees know they are being monitored, then that will reduce expectations of privacy.  A frequent issue is use of work email.  If the employer allows use of work email for personal use, the employer cannot later, for example, prohibit use of work email for union activity.  Generally, the extent to which employers can invade an employee’s personal email will depend on the extent to which the employee has used work email servers to develop or send the personal email and the extent to which the personal email is password protected.  

Texas does recognize the tort of invasion of privacy (if the invasion would be offensive to a reasonable person).  In the workplace, there are varying levels of expectations of privacy.  For example, if an employer provides lockers to employees, but requires them to provide their own locks, then the employee does have an expectation of privacy in her locker.  So, yes, if the employer searches that locker without the employee’s permission, then the employer has violated the employee’s right to privacy.  But, if the employer provides the lock, then there probably is no legitimate expectation of privacy.

A 2007 survey shows that many employer engage is some sort of electronic monitoring.  Out of 304 employers surveyed, 65% reported the use of software to block connections to inappropriate websites.  96% block access to adult sites, 61% to game sites and 50% to social networking sites.  46% track key strokes, content and time spent at the keyboard.  12% monitor the blogosphere to see what is being written about the employer.  43% monitor employee email.  So, yes electronic monitoring is a continuing practice. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 School employee loses job because he sent an email containing a one word obscenity to a blog.  See ABA article.  When the employee was confronted with the email, he resigned.  Another example of someone who publishes something controversial on the internet under the mistaken belief no one will ever see it. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Personal emails at work are sometimes protected from intrusion and sometimes not.  The email system belongs to the employer.  One indicator that work generated emails may be protected occurs when the employer allows some personal use of email.  See the case discussed at one blog post.  But, see another case discussed at a different blog in which the employee's emails were found not to be protected from review by the employer.  The biggest difference in the two cases is that in the first case, the employer did allow some personal use of the employer's email system.  That court found that yes, the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a situation.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 In a recent decision, a federal court in California found it unlawful for an employer to monitor an employee's key strokes in order to obtain his password to a personal email account.  The U.S. district court found this action violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, passed in 1986.  The decision, Brahmana v. Lembo,  is important.   While the email account may be personal, the equipment used to access the account belongs to the employer.  The courts have wrestled with this issue for some time and will, no doubt, continue to struggle with he boundaries between employee property and employer property. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link