Smyth v. Pillsbury Co. - 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996)

Rule:

One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Liability only attaches when the intrusion is substantial and would be highly offensive to the "ordinary reasonable person."

Facts:

Plaintiff at-will employee filed a wrongful discharge action against defendant employer. He alleged that defendant violated his right to privacy by intercepting e-mail communications he transmitted using defendant's e-mail system and in terminating him for his inappropriate comments. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, did the defendant employer violate plaintiff’s right to privacy? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It applied the definition of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion to the facts and circumstances of the case and found that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In the first instance, unlike urinalysis and personal property searches, it found that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mail communications that plaintiff voluntarily made to his supervisor over the company e-mail system notwithstanding any assurances that such communications would not be intercepted by management. In the second instance, even if there were such an expectation of privacy, the court concluded that a reasonable person would not consider defendant's interception of those communications to have been a substantial and highly offensive invasion of his privacy.