| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Smyth v. Pillsbury Co. ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Smyth v. Pillsbury Co.
''Michael A. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company'', 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996) was decided on January 18, 1996 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.〔''Michael A. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company'', 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996)〕 Michael A. Smyth was a regional operations manager at the Pillsbury Company. Smyth had a company email account that he was able to access from work and home. Pillsbury, on multiple occasions, told its employees that all email communications were private, confidential, and that there was no danger of the messages being intercepted and used as grounds for discipline or termination.
In October 1994, while at home, Smyth received emails from his supervisor and, thinking that his replies would not be intercepted or used against him, made threatening comments. Pillsbury intercepted the emails and, despite the previous assurances made to the employees, terminated him. Smyth brought a wrongful discharge suit against Pillsbury, claiming that his right to privacy had been violated when his emails were intercepted.
==Ruling of the Court==
Judge Charles R. Weiner presided over the trial and authored the court's opinion. The decision was based on an examination of the common law exceptions to Pennsylvania's denial of a cause of action for the termination of an at-will employee. The court looked to the cases that stated a cause of action exists only where the termination of an at-will employee threatens or violates a clear mandate of public policy.〔''Borse v. Piece Goods Shop, Inc.'', 963 F.2d 611, (3d Cir. 1992)〕 Quoting an earlier Third Circuit decision, Judge Weiner defined a violation of a clear mandate of public policy as something that "strikes at the heart of a citizen's social right, duties and responsibilities."〔''Geary v. United States Steel Corp.'', 456 Pa. 171 (1974)〕 Using this framework, the court evaluated Smyth's claim that his termination was based on a violation of his common law right to privacy and even went as far as to infer and analyze an argument based on estoppel. The court was not persuaded by the arguments and granted Pillsbury's motion to dismiss.〔
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Smyth v. Pillsbury Co.」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|