Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
An employer’s decision to dig through an employee’s stored e-mails does not violate any provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a federal appeals court ruled in December. The ECPA bans e-mail “interception” only if it occurs at the time of transmission and exempts the owner of an e-mail system from any claim alleging illegal “seizure” of stored e-mails. In Fraser v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that since Richard Fraser’s e-mails were stored on Nationwide’s system, any search by the company was authorized by an express exemption in the federal ECPA for e-mail service providers. The unanimous three-judge panel also rejected Fraser’s claim that he was wrongfully discharged. Fraser, who left Nationwide in September 1998, claimed he was fired in retaliation for lodging complaints against the company with state authorities and for efforts to get legislation passed to protect agents like himself from being fired for anything less than just cause. The court held that whistle-blower laws protect only public employees and that Fraser’s case did not fall into any of the narrow public-policy exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine recognized by the Pennsylvania courts. Significantly, the court held that the First Amendment cannot be cited in a wrongful-discharge claim by private-sector workers as the grounds for a public-policy exception. But the verdict was not a total loss for Fraser. The court revived one of his claims in which he is seeking more than $200,000 in deferred compensation he claimed to have been denied after starting work for another insurer. Fraser argued that Nationwide terminated him because he had filed complaints with the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office over the company’s allegedly illegal conduct, including its discriminatory refusal to write car insurance for unmarried or new drivers. (As a result of Fraser’s efforts, Nationwide was required to pay fines and enter into a consent order. The Pennsylvania attorney general’s office wrote Fraser a thank-you letter, Third Circuit judge Thomas Ambro noted.) Fraser also claimed that he was terminated for criticizing Nationwide while acting as an officer of the Nationwide Insurance Independent Contractors Association, and for attempting to obtain passage of legislation in Pennsylvania to ensure that independent insurance agents could be terminated only for “just cause.” But Nationwide claimed that it terminated Fraser because he was disloyal. The company noted that he drafted a letter to two competitors expressing NIICA’s dissatisfaction with Nationwide and seeking to determine whether they would be interested in acquiring the policyholders of the dissatisfied agents. Fraser claims that the letters were drafted only to get Nationwide’s attention and were not sent. But Nationwide said that when it learned of the letters, it became concerned that Fraser might also be revealing company secrets to its competitors. The company decided to search its main file server � on which all of Fraser’s e-mail was lodged � for any messages to or from Fraser that showed similar improper behavior. In March 2001, U.S. district judge Anita Brody dismissed Fraser’s suit after concluding that none of his claims over the e-mail search were valid. She said his wrongful-discharge claim failed because he didn’t qualify for any exception to the at-will employment doctrine. The Third Circuit upheld most of Brody’s rulings in December. On the claim relating to the search of his e-mails, Judge Ambro found that Brody was correct in holding that Title II of the ECPA prohibits only those “intercepts” that occur at the time of transmission. “Every circuit court to have considered the matter has held that an ‘intercept’ under the ECPA must occur contemporaneously with transmission,” Ambro wrote in his opinion. Ambro found that Title II prohibits “seizures” of stored e-mails but includes an exception for seizures authorized “by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications service.” Although no federal appellate court has yet interpreted the exception, Ambro found that a judge in the District of Nevada held in Bohach v. City of Reno that the Reno Police Department could, without violating Title II, retrieve pager text messages stored on the police department’s computer system because the department “is the provider of the service” and “service providers [may] do as they wish when it comes to accessing communications in electronic storage.” Adopting the Bohach court’s reasoning, Ambro found that “because Fraser’s e-mail was stored on Nationwide’s system (which Nationwide administered), its search of that e-mail falls within [the] exception to Title II.” Turning to Fraser’s wrongful-discharge claim, Ambro found that Pennsylvania courts have recognized only three limited circumstances in which public policy will trump employment at-will. Under the Pennsylvania superior court’s 1988 decision in Hennessy v. Santiago, an employer cannot require an employee to commit a crime and fire him for refusing to do so; cannot prevent an employee from complying with a statutorily imposed duty; and cannot discharge an employee when specifically prohibited from doing so by statute. Fraser’s lawyer, James Wiles, argued that his case fits within Hennessy’s first two exceptions because Nationwide fired him for refusing to commit a crime and for his attempt to comply with a statutorily imposed duty. Ambro disagreed, saying there was no evidence that Nationwide directed him to commit any crime and that Fraser could not point to any statutory duty to report Nationwide’s violations of the law. Wiles also cited the Third Circuit’s 1983 decision in Novosel v. Nationwide Insurance Co., in which the court held that firing an employee for his refusal to participate in a political lobbying effort contravened public policy and therefore was impermissible. Under Novosel, Wiles argued, the First Amendment limits an employer’s discretion to fire employees at-will. But Ambro found that the Third Circuit had already rejected that argument and predicted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court “would not look to the First Amendment as a source of public policy when there is no state action.” But Ambro also found that Brody might have erred when she dismissed Fraser’s claim for deferred compensation. Fraser’s agent’s agreement contained a forfeiture-for-competition provision, specifying that the agent forfeits deferred compensation by becoming associated with another insurance business in a 25-mile radius within a year of cancellation of the agreement. Fraser claimed that, because of financial hardship, he was forced to seek work with another insurance company and, as a result, forfeited several hundred thousand dollars of deferred compensation. Brody held that the provision was enforceable, but Fraser argued on appeal that it was void because his termination was involuntary and inequitable and because forfeiture is disfavored in Pennsylvania. Ambro found that, at the time of Brody’s ruling, she did not have the benefit of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Hess v. Gebhard & Co. Inc., in which the justices held a forfeiture-for-competition provision invalid. Ambro remanded this claim alone to the district court. A version of this story originally appeared in The Legal Intelligencer, a sibling publication of Corporate Counsel and a part of American Lawyer Media.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.