Philadelphia Business Lawyer Blog

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy for emails sent through a personal email account (name@gmail.com for example) over her employer's network. This is significant because prior law had held just the opposite-namely that the employer did have access to anything an employee was sending over the employer's network. While this case focused extensively on the relationship between the attorney client privilege (because the personal email the employee sent was to her lawyer about a lawsuit against her employer) and the employer's right to review company email -- this case should give pause to human resource departments that it might be a good time to update or perhaps create your employee manuals.

At our Philadelphia business law firm, we like to think of an employee handbook as not only benefiting the employee, but also providing tremendous legal benefits for the employer. By having a clearly defined policy or procedure in place, along with defined consequences for the failure to meet them, exposure to litigation is greatly reduced. In fact, business insurance carriers will often reduce your premium if you have clearly defined policies for email, communication, sexual harassment, and anti-discrimination.

As a result of this case we are now advising our clients to have communication policies in place that provide notice to employees that personal email accounts (name@gmail or name@yahoo.com for example) are subject to monitoring when sent over the company network. In addition, even if you elect not to monitor personal emails sent over the company's network, everyone should be aware that records of such emails may be discoverable in litigation. This could lead to very embarrassing situations for you and your employees. Any company, whether it is small or large, can benefit by having a strong electronic communications policy in effect to reduce company exposure in litigation.

Continue reading "Email Policies for Small Businesses in the Greater Philadelphia Region" »

I thought it made sense to start off this blog with a post about the risks of blogging itself. More and more businesses are using both blogs and social media (such as Facebook, Twitter and others) to expand their brand visibility and attract new customers. While there are numerous seminars to teach you how to use all this stuff to your advantage, there are a few legal points you need to keep in mind.

The 3rd Circuit (the appellate court for PA, NJ, DE, and the Virgin Islands) held a few years ago in Dimeo v Max that bloggers are not liable for comments other people post on their sites. Like everything in the law, there are exceptions, but the general rule is that unless you wrote it or had someone else write it on your behalf you're not responsible.

So the next question is, what about the stuff you write yourself? Blogs are supposed to be open exchanges of information, and the best of them often break news quickly. Does this mean as a blogger you are now a full fledged member of the media, entitled to source protection and back stage passes? Not according to a recent case in New Jersey. In Too Much Media v Hale, the defendant in a defamation case argued that she could protect her sources under NJ's press shield law. In a decision that relied more on an analysis of the facts of Ms. Hale's actions rather than a verdict against bloggers as a whole, the court found a distinction between her posts and those of someone in the business of disseminating news for the general public. While this is good news for companies who are the target of online smear campaigns, it raises some real questions about liability for those bloggers who regularly intersperse news with commentary.