This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ed
invasion of privacy is substantial and highly offensive to a reasonable person, the Court
of Appeals predicted that Pennsylvania would adopt a balancing test which balances the
employee's privacy interest against the employer's interest in maintaining a drug-free
workplace. Id. at 625. Because the Court of Appeals in Borse could "envision at least two
ways in which an employer's drug and alcohol program might violate the public policy
protecting individuals from tortious invasion of privacy by private actors" id. at 626, the
Court vacated the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and remanded
the case to the district court with directions to grant Borse leave to amend the Complaint
to allege how the defendant's drug and alcohol program violates her right to privacy.
Applying the Restatement definition of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion to the facts
*101 and circumstances of the case sub judice, we find that plaintiff has failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. In the first instance, unlike urinalysis and
personal property searches, we do not find a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mail 76 communications voluntarily made by an employee to his supervisor over the company email system notwithstanding any assurances that such communications would not be
intercepted by management. Once plaintiff communicated the alleged unprofessional
comments to a second person (his supervisor) over an e-mail system which was
apparently utilized by the entire company, any reasonable expectation of privacy was
lost. Significantly, the defendant did not require plaintiff, as in the case of an urinalysis or
personal property search to disclose any personal information about himself. Rather,
plaintiff voluntarily communicated the alleged unprofessional comments over the
company e-mail system. We find no privacy interests in such communications.
In the second instance, even if we found that an employee had a reasonable expectation
of privacy in the contents of his e-mail communications over the company e-mail system,
we do not find that a reasonable person would...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.
- Spring '08