My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2002-06-26 CC Packet
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2002
>
2002-06-26 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2009 9:17:11 AM
Creation date
5/12/2009 9:14:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
216
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. . <br /> <br />Case example: <br />Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir.1983) <br />An employer had a policy of monitoring solicitation calls as part of its regular training <br />program. However, employees were permitted to make personal calls on company <br />telephones and were told that their personal calls would not be monitored except to the <br />extent necessary to determine whether a particular call was of a personal or business <br />nature. An employee received a call from a friend during her lunch hour. During the <br />conversation the employee discussed a job interview she had recently attended. The <br />employer confronted the employee regarding the phone call. The employee sued <br />claiming the employer violated the ECP A. The court rejected the employer's argument <br />that the employee had consented to the monitoring by using the company's telephones <br />and knowing that the employer had the capability to monitor phone conversations. The <br />court reasoned that in order to use the consent exception to the ECP A an employer must <br />show that an employee actually consented to the type of monitoring that took place. <br /> <br />Reducing the risk of liability for employer monitoring <br /> <br />Cities can attempt to reduce the risk of liability for monitoring by adopting a policy relating to <br />employee use of technology and the Internet. A well-drafted policy can eliminate employee <br />expectation of privacy in the use of technology and the Internet and can serve as evidence of <br />employee consent to employer monitoring. There are several statements that a city might want <br />to include in its policy. <br /> <br />. State that the technology and Internet access is owned, paid for and maintained by the <br />City. <br /> <br />. Limit the use of technology and the Internet to business purposes (you may want to <br />make certain exceptions for limited personal use). <br /> <br />. State that the use of passwords by employees does not make any files protected by <br />passwords private. Passwords must be disclosed to supervisors upon request and may <br />be bypassed by technology staff if determined necessary by the City. <br /> <br />. State that the City will monitor employee e-mail, computer files and Internet use as it <br />determines necessary and may disclose information from these sources to third parties <br />without providing notice to employees. <br /> <br />B. Harassment <br /> <br />Employee use of e-mail and the Internet may give rise to claims of harassment from other <br />employees or third parties. For example, harassment claims could occur when: <br /> <br />. An employee sends an e-mail message containing racist or sexist comments to other <br />employees. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />L___ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.