Supreme Court: You Can Spy on Employees if...

Supreme Court: You Can Spy on Employees if...


Thursday, July 08, 2010



Katie Weaver-Johnson

Dd9902bc56a9d85cdc62c00083ea4871

Did you happen to notice the recent Supreme Court ruling that ruled in favor of employers having the right to check up on employee usage of mobile devices to protect their bottom line?

These days it is fairly common for organizations to equip their employees with mobile devices and pagers.  But when employees are given a character allowance for texting and they go over the allowance, the organization is charged overage fees and this is where the ruling comes in.

In this court case, the employers were looking to get costs back in line and requested transcripts of the employee text messages to verify if the overage fees were necessary.  What the employers found were lots of personal (some highly explicit) text messages being sent on company owned devices.

After several lower court rulings, the Supreme Court ruled that because the employers suspected that people were breaking the rules and using their mobile devices and pagers for non-business communications, the employers were justified in requesting and reading the text message transcripts.

But before employers get too excited…there are multiple lessons learned in this Supreme Court ruling, and employers do not have free reign.  Employers must have clearly defined policies that spell out what employees can and cannot do on the clock and off the clock with company property. 

The employer’s dos and don’ts should include phones, laptops, etc.  Employers must also communicate the policy to all appropriate employees to make sure they understand what the dos and don’ts include. 

Employers should also make sure managers and supervisors understand what steps they can and cannot take when it comes to keeping costs down and privacy rights cannot be invaded just for the sake of controlling costs.

Does your organization have the right policies in place with the right people?  Would your policies and procedures hold up in a court ruling?

Comments