Email interception by an employer

[Stand up]

Okay, in the event employee emails are being intercepted (confirmed intercepts, not searching stored email), what is the legal position regarding the sender when that employee is the recipient?

[GreatGadsby]

if the employee chooses to access their email at work or use a work provided email address, the emoloyer has access. I'm not sure that I understand your question, however. assuming the sender is not an employee of said employer, there is nothing they can do, short of blocking his address.

[Stand up]

It is employee provided email, and personal use of email adress is allowed, (or if it is not allowed and is pressed in this matter, will be thrown out based on discriminatory use of policy)and I understand that accessing stored emails is allowed by an employer under ECPA, however, the monitoring of in/out emails as they occur is not(intercept). And yes, I am referring to the third party in this case. Not the employee and not the employer. A person who sends a personal email to the employee at the work address. I understand that the scope of email monitoring must be contained to work related matters and personal email monitoring is falls outside of that as I am reading the law. So if the employer is shown to have violated the rights of the employee, would the rights of the third party not also have been violated?
Thank you.

[GreatGadsby]

as far as I know, and I'm sure someone will chime in if I'm mistaken, they could easily and legally monitor in/outgoing email because it's being sent over their internet connection. if you're checking your work email from a non work provided connection (eg:home) then it would be different. even then, they could have their email servers set up to save all messages incoming or outgoing and could peruse them at their leisure.

I doubt the 3rd party has any claim against the employer for any sort of rights violation. I wouldn't think they had an expectation of privacy if they could tell it was a work email addy. the employee should be aware of company policies relating to internet/email usage and inform his acquaintances to use a personal email address instead, they're freely available all over the web.

[Stand up]

they could have their email servers set up to save all messages incoming or outgoing and could peruse them at their leisure.
I wouldn't think they had an expectation of privacy if they could tell it was a work email addy.

I think the same way. If it clearly is a company email address then in the case of legal monitoring, no liability to a third party ...but when in the case of illegal monitoring, one has to wonder.
And on the subject of servers, this is what I can't figure out, on the employer side ... they own the server, they own the address, they even own the computer the employee uses, so ECPA gives them legal access to all stored emails. Like you said, they could peruse them 'til the cows come home, however, in this case the emails are being intercepted even before the employee receives them, the moment they are sent ... I mean seriously, they would have to wait what ... mere minutes ... for it to become a stored email on the server right? The ECPA says intercept is a violation. Who knows. Strange new world we live in.
Thanks for the input.

[Mr. Knowitall]

How would there be liability to the third party through a violation of the employee's rights?

This may fall under the consent exception to the ECPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), which has been interpreted as including implied consent. Within the scope of implied consent, an employee can expect to be deemed to have given consent if, once aware of the employer's email interception policy, the employee continues to use the e-mail system. Also the employer may fall under the "service provider" exception, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a).

[Stand up]

How would there be liability to the third party through a violation of the employee's rights?

That was my first question as well. Even if it is shown that the employers actions were illegal, it appears the only liability would be if information in the email from the third party was actually used in a manner that caused harm to the third party.
Thanks for the info.

[Stand up]

However, on the subject of consent, implied or otherwise, I am reading the following am still left wondering about the issue of 'intercept'.

Federal Law Allows Employer Review of Employee Email

Looking through old emails on your company's equipment does not violate the ECPA.
The federal law that applies to workplace monitoring of email is called the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"). Among other things, the ECPA prohibits "intercepts" of electronic communications, including email. Federal courts interpreting this part of the ECPA have said that companies do not "intercept" an email as that term is used in the ECPA by searching through emails stored on the company server. In other words, looking through old emails on your company's equipment does not violate the ECPA. A system in which emails are watched in real time, as they come in and go out, may not fit within this analysis and should be used with caution.
That is from here.

[Stand up]

Actually, I am more stuck on this 'hunt' because it is not routine monitoring, it is targeted to one person. The employer is specifically seeking grounds to terminate the employee. Recent stock option adjustments have left the company looking for ways to trim the fat, but it appears this one particular employee will be challenging for them to terminate without a legal battle ensuing, so they are looking for solid grounds. There appears to be some element of personal vendetta involved as well, so it has my attention.