Employer Liability When Employees Use Internet Communications For Offensive Purposes
Employer Liability When Employees Use Internet Communications For Offensive Purposes
Free Online Articles Directory
Why Submit Articles?
Top Authors
Top Articles
FAQ
ABAnswers
0 && $.browser.msie ) {
var ie_version = parseInt($.browser.version);
if(ie_version Login
Register
Hello
My Home
Sign Out
Email
Password
Remember me?
Lost Password?
Home Page > Law > Employer Liability When Employees Use Internet Communications For Offensive Purposes
Employer Liability When Employees Use Internet Communications For Offensive Purposes
Posted: Oct 28, 2007 |Comments: 0
| Views: 679 |
What happens when you have a rogue or even out of control employee that uses an office computer to send or even post threats of great bodily harm or uses an office computer to generate other highly offensive communications? Can an employer who ends up being sued for such conduct assert a defense of immunity under the provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230. This particular federal law defense of immunity actually does preempt inconsistent state law that might otherwise impose liability in certain circumstances. The Act immunizes “provider[s]… of an interactive computer service” (the employer) where “another information content provider” (the employee) has initiated the offending activity.
While the facts considered recently by a California Court of Appeal in Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790 are unquestionably extreme and will not likely be encountered in garden-variety employment situations, the CDA immunity defense could well apply in more benign or commonplace circumstances as a result of the court’s ruling in this particular case.
In the Delfino case, the court considered a situation in which unbeknownst to his employer, a very angry and upset employee sends anonymous emails to various adversaries. He also created posts on Internet bulletin boards, threatening great bodily harm and death to these various individuals.
In making this illicit communications, the employee used the computer systems of his employer. The victims of these horrible threats and postings ended up contacting the FBI. The FBI in turn traced the emails and postings to the employee’s office computer. This was accomplished by by tracking the emails and postings back through the originating IP address.
The employee admitted that he engaged in the in the conduct of which he was accused. In the end, criminal charges are filed against him.
The employer terminated the employee. The victims of the employee’s threats sued the employee and the employer for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision or retention. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed the employer was aware that the employee was using its computer system to threaten them. The further argued that the employee took no action to prevent the co-defendant employee from continuing to make threats over the Internet.
The ultimate question before the court in the case was: Can the employer be liable under these circumstances?
Some may consider this particular scenario far fetched. The case was presented as one of first impression in Delfino v. Agilent. The California appellate court determined that an employer could in fact assert the immunity defense under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230.
In asking the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case, the employer filed a motion for summary judgment, in which it asserted that the employer was a “provider… of an interactive computer service”, and therefore entitled to complete immunity under the CDA. Section 230(c)(1) states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The statute also preempts inconsistent state law that would impose liability, saying: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” Section 230(e)(3), italics added.
The primary goal of the CDA has been to control the exposure of minors to indecent material over the Internet. Nonetheless, one of its other important purposes is “to encourage [Internet] service providers to self-regulate the dissemination of offensive materials over their services.” This was determined in the case of Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (4th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 327, 331, cert. den. (1998) 524 U.S. 937.
The CDA also been enforced in a manner so as to avoid the chilling effect on Internet free speech that would occur if tort liability ended up being imposed on companies that do not create potentially harmful messages but are simply intermediaries for their delivery. Id. at 330-331.
Accordingly, Section 230(c)(2) immunizes from liability an interactive computer service provider or user who makes good faith efforts to restrict access to material deemed objectionable. However, the provider must make a good faith effort to restrict access to material that is deemed objectionable.
Drawing on prior CDA cases that actually were beyond the employment context, the Delfino court ruled that there are three essential elements that a defendant must establish in order to claim section 230 immunity. These three elements are determined by the court are:
(a) the defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service;
(b) the cause of action treats the defendant as a publisher or speaker of information; and
(c) the information at issue is provided by another information content provider. Gentry v. eBay, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 830.
In considering the first element (whether the employer was a provider or user of an interactive computer service), the court ruled the question a matter of first impression. In its judgment, the court specifically held: “We are aware of no case that has held that a corporate employer is a provider of interactive computer services under circumstances such as those presented here. But several commentators have opined that an employer that provides its employees with Internet access through the company’s internal computer system is among the class of parties potentially immune under the CDA.” Delfino, 145 Cal.App.4th at 805.
Prior courts had interpreted the term “interactive computer service” broadly in their own decisions and rulings. (For example, in Batzel v. Smith (9th Cir. 2003) 333 F.3d 1018, 1030, fn. 15, cert. den. (2004) 541 U.S. 1085), the court held that the employer was a “provider of interactive computer services” under the CDA. Id. At 806.
Considering the second element of the test, (whether the cause of action treated the defendant as a publisher or speaker of information), the court found that plaintiffs, in alleging that the employer was liable for the employee’s cyber threats, sought to treat the employer “as a publisher or speaker” of those messages. (sec. 230(c)(1).) Id.
On the last element of the test, (whether the information at issue was provided by another information content provider), there was no dispute that the employee was the party who had authored the offensive e-mails and postings. Moreover, there was no evidence that the employer played any role at all in “the creation or development” of these threatening and offensive messages and postings. Id. at 807-08.
In the end, the court concluded that the employer satisfied all three of the elements necessary to establish immunity under the CDA. Therefore, the court of appeal did affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. The court of appeals agreed that the grant of immunity under the CDA was proper pursuant to the terms and conditions of that law.
In its decision, the court also noted that, even if plaintiffs’ claims had not been barred under section 230(c)(1), granting summary judgment to the employer was nonetheless proper. The court reached this conclusion because plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case on their claims against the employer. Id. at 808. In this regard, the court specifically held that there was no indication that the employer ratified in any manner the employee’s conduct, and that the employer could not be liable under theory of respondeat superior. Id. at 810-12. In addition, there was not even any evidence that the employer was even aware of the employee’s conduct. Id. at 815.
In its holding and order, the court affirmed the long established principle that an employer will not be held vicariously liable for an employee’s malicious or tortious conduct in a situation in which the employee substantially deviates from his employment duties for personal purposes. The court additionally offered what can be considered an important teaching point on the theory and principle of ratification under California law.
The court noted that imposing derivative liability on the employer for an employees actions need not be founded on respondeat superior. Such liability can also be based upon the doctrine of ratification as discussed in Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc. (1998) 65 Cal. App.4th 833, 852). In that case, the court observed that an employee’s actions may be ratified after the fact by the employer’s voluntary election to adopt the employee’s conduct. This is done, in essence, by treating the conduct as that of the employer’s own. Id. at 810.
In considering what evidence can support the ratification theory, the Delfino court cited the California Civil Code 2339. The court, in citing that provision, determined that an employer’s failure to discharge an employee after knowledge of his or her wrongful acts may be used as evidence that can support ratification of that employee’s conduct.
In the end, there were a number of lessons that have been learned in the aftermath of Delfino. This includes the fact that although employers can take some degree comfort that the CDA can offer them immunity if out of line employees make offensive or threatening Internet postings or emails, conservative employers should take corrective actions immediately against offending employees when such conduct is discovered. This action potentially should include termination, if the circumstances so warrant. Employers should institute certain policies and procedures that prohibit employees from using the employer’s computers to post or send threatening or offensive information. Moreover, since CDA immunity will be lost if the employer cannot establish that the information at issue was “provided by another information content provider”, cautious employers will also need to avoid any conduct that would suggest the employer has promoted, sponsored, initiated, or ratified the offending material in any way, shape or form.
Retrieved from “http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/employer-liability-when-employees-use-internet-communications-for-offensive-purposes-246420.html”
(ArticlesBase SC #246420)
Liked this article? Click here to publish it on your website or blog, it’s free and easy!
Robert Masud, Esq. -
About the Author:
Robert Masud, Esq. is the principal of Masud & Company LLC, a law firm for the world of business, finance and the internet. Find out how our lawyers can help you at http://www.masudco.com.
]]>
Questions and Answers
Ask our experts your Law related questions here…
200 Characters left
What do employers expect from employees?
Design a suitable VPN using Internet Service Providers for the requirements of a bank
What is disadvantage of using internet
Rate this Article
vote(s)
0 vote(s)
Feedback
RSS
Print
Email
Re-Publish
Article Tags:
internet, internet communications, employer liability
Latest Law Articles
More from Robert Masud, Esq.
Documentation today may keep an employee’s discrimination claim away — or provide a sound defense if you listen to our labor law experts. (02:30)
What Employee Benefits Should You Offer?
What Employee Benefits Should You Offer? Learn in this video dealing with what your employees are entitled to. (01:16)
Some regulations only apply to larger employers. Does that mean small business can get away with more? (01:31)
A handbook today might keep lawyers away, but what should it say? (01:56)
Small Business Policies on Employee Blogging
Anyone can have a blog. As an employer, how should you react to blogs your employees may create on their own and post outside of the office?
(04:50)
Are You Aware of Blunders in Internet Marketing
For the great success in the business campaign on the Internet, efficient management of website and web tools is must. Many times the Internet marketing companies keep on with the big mistakes they are committing. It causes does more harm to the business interests. Find out more about this.
By:
John Mahoneyl
Internet>
Internet Marketingl
Sep 17, 2008
Employment policies and procedures to protect your business and Not Get Sued
You and your business are responsible for the well-being of your employees, both morally and legally. If you have written employment policies and procedures in place with proper behavior and guidelines made clear to your employees, your business will be better protected.
By:
Robert Jamesl
Law>
National, State, Locall
Oct 11, 2010
The Internet and Enterprise Liability
Our customer not only realized that they had to circle the wagons to protect their image but had a legal and moral responsibility to the community in which the offender resides.
By:
melvillejacksonl
Businessl
Dec 16, 2008
Todays internet use and misuse
The Internet is a network of computers linking the United States with the rest of the world. Originally developed as a way for U.S. research scientists to communicate with each other, by the mid 1990s the Internet had become a popular form of telecommunication for personal computer users. The dramatic growth in the number of persons using the network heralded the most important change in telecommunications since the introduction of television in the late 1940s.
By:
Dr Izharul Hasanl
Across the United States and around the world, a new type of craft complex has sprung up known as “Executive Suites”.
By:
Pinki Guptal
Business>
Home Businessl
Nov 04, 2009
Keeping an Eye on Internet Usage in the Workpalce
Discussion of policy and guidelines for personal Internet usage in the workplace. What is acceptable use at work? Creating a company standard can help limit or restrict inappropriate activity.
By:
Natalie Rhodenl
Business>
Human Resourcesl
Nov 26, 2008
How Debt Settlement Works – Employing a Debt Negotiator
Many laws and policies are being invented so as to provide some respite to the people. The financial legislation that Obama has introduced is targeted to address the needs and demands of these consumers who are so much burdened with dues that they are almost on the verge of a crash.
By:
Clyde Archerl
Financel
Aug 05, 2010
Stop! In the Name Of…Retainers? – Practicing Law Is Just Like Practicing Anything. Right?
Sure, you’re smarter than the average Jamie…and your logic is, well, flawless. But in many ways, the law is just like other professions. You advise clients. You prepare forms and other documentation.
By:
Easy Softl
Lawl
Feb 03, 2011
Your Professional Negligence Claim And Forensic Accountants
You are experiencing professional negligence because your accountant has let you down. Something has gone wrong and you are sure it’s due to a breach of their duty of care. This article explains how a specialist solicitor can help to provide evidence to start a professional negligence claim for accountant negligence.
By:
Tim Bishopl
Lawl
Feb 03, 2011
What’s At Stake Without A Cohabitation Agreement
When a couple decides to live together, they need to carefully think things through. A decision such as this should not be make lightly or without serious consideration.
By:
Shawn Lindseyl
Lawl
Feb 03, 2011
Austin Divorce Lawyer: The Selection Process
A crucial aspect in a divorce process is picking the right Austin divorce lawyer to handle your case. It would best if a good Austin family lawyer would handle your spouse as well despite the differences. This would be appropriate regardless of whether you are entering a divorce process for the first time or have been issued a divorce summons.
By:
Terro Whitel
Lawl
Feb 03, 2011
Do You Need a Denver Adoption Lawyer?
There are some situations in life where you just don’t want to leave anything to chance. Adoption is one of those situations. When it comes to your adopted child—no matter what the circumstances surrounding the adoption—there is a lot of really complicated paperwork, and the legal process can be difficult to understand, as well.
By:
familylawl
Lawl
Feb 03, 2011
If you’re considering adopting a child, there are many reasons why you should consider hiring an adoption lawyer. As in any other city, state, or even country, adoption in Denver has its own particular set of rules and regulations, and an adoption attorney can help you to sift through all the legalese, ensuring you the best protection of your adoptive parental rights, and those of your adopted child.
By:
familylawl
Lawl
Feb 03, 2011
Solicitors Can Obtain Compensation For Hair Dye Injuries
A high proportion of British women use hair dye on a regular basis to eliminate grey hairs or to achieve and maintain a new look.
By:
sofiyajecksonl
Lawl
Feb 03, 2011
Understand the US immigration method
It truly is a nicely known truth that us immigration is by far probably the most commonly favored. Plainly, immigration is getting into and staying in a region to which you aren’t a native.The usa of America, the land of opportunities as well as a land of immigrants, will take pride in diversity in its culture and custom simply because of her immigrants. No other nation enjoys the advantage as us immigration when it comes to the quantity of immigrants. The country’s economic climate ha…
By:
Shane Roblesl
Lawl
Feb 02, 2011
Marketing Through Blogs Presents New Legal Risks
In recent times blogs have taken on new meaning on the Internet and World Wide Web. Once considered nothing more than rather offbeat diaries, blogs have become major marketing tools at the present point in time. In fact, today millions of consumers from all walks of life and from all…
By:
Robert Masud, Esq.l
Internetl
Oct 01, 2007
Clamping Down On The Use Of Trademarks By Third Parties
When Internet users search online for information, they use search engines like Yahoo, Google, and MSN. Because some page owners have paid for some of its links to the search engine websites and the links come up whenever the website owner’s results appear as a search result, there have recently…
By:
Robert Masud, Esq.l
Lawl
Jun 24, 2007
Bloggers Need To Beware Of Violating FTC Deceptive Practice Standards When Making Endorsements
The FTC has handed down an advisory opinion that may have dire consequences for companies that employee individuals who are involved in blogging and promote those companies products or services while blogging. According to the FTC, this may hold true even if these employees are undertaking this blogging on their…
By:
Robert Masud, Esq.l
Internetl
Jun 18, 2007
Combating Cyber-Squatting And Other Domain Name Maladies: An Overview Of UDRP Proceedings
Businesses that are working to establish an easily identifiable Internet presence oftentimes utilize their trademarks in their domain names in order to better direct customers to their website venues. Unfortunately, disputes many times occur when a business learns that some other individual or entity is using that enterprise’s trademark or…
By:
Robert Masud, Esq.l
Internetl
Jun 13, 2007
Add new Comment
Your Name: *
Your Email:
Comment Body: *
Verification code:*
* Required fields
Submit
Your Articles Here
It’s Free and easy
Sign Up Today
Author Navigation
My Home
Publish Article
View/Edit Articles
View/Edit Q&A
Edit your Account
Manage Authors
Statistics Page
Personal RSS Builder
My Home
Edit your Account
Update Profile
View/Edit Q&A
Publish Article
Author Box
Robert Masud, Esq. has 5 articles online
Articles Categories
All Categories
Advertising
Arts & Entertainment
Automotive
Beauty
Business
Careers
Computers
Education
Finance
Food and Beverage
Health
Hobbies
Home and Family
Home Improvement
Internet
Law
Marketing
News and Society
Relationships
Self Improvement
Shopping
Spirituality
Sports and Fitness
Technology
Travel
Writing
Bankruptcy
Copyright
Criminal
Cyber Law
Health and Safety
Immigration
Intellectual Property
Internet Law
National, State, Local
Patents
Personal Injury
Regulatory Compliance
Trademarks
]]>
Need Help?
Contact Us
FAQ
Submit Articles
Editorial Guidelines
Blog
Site Links
Recent Articles
Top Authors
Top Articles
Find Articles
Site Map
Mobile Version
Webmasters
RSS Builder
RSS
Link to Us
Business Info
Advertising
Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy | User published content is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Copyright © 2005-2011 Free Articles by ArticlesBase.com, All rights reserved.
Robert Masud, Esq. is the principal of Masud & Company LLC, a law firm for the world of business, finance and the internet. Find out how our lawyers can help you at http://www.masudco.com.
Article from articlesbase.com
Find More Employment Articles
