Employment Law Alert : Gibbons P.C.: Labor Relations, Employment Contracts, Employee Benefits, & Wrongful Discharge Lawyers & Attorneys

Although in recent years employers have become increasingly focused on the preservation, discovery and production of electronically-stored information, the Third Circuit’s January 4, 2012 decision in Bull v. United Parcel Service serves as a reminder to companies that original documents can and often do play a critical role in employment litigation matters. The preservation and discovery of originals should not be overlooked. Employers should be certain to both request original documents in discovery (and pursue their production through motion practice as necessary) and take necessary steps to preserve originals when litigation is threatened or commenced.

In Bull, the Third Circuit was asked to review the District of New Jersey’s dismissal with prejudice of the plaintiff’s discrimination claim as a sanction for her failure to produce original notes from her health care provider. The primary issue in Bull was whether the production of only copies, when the original documents were available, constituted spoliation and justified the harsh sanction imposed by the District Court. The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court, in part, holding that “producing copies in instances where the originals have been requested may constitute spoliation if it would prevent discovering critical information.” However, the Court determined that based upon the facts of this case, the District Court had abused its discretion when it dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.

Factual and Procedural Background

After suffering a work-related injury to her shoulder. UPS offered Plaintiff Lauren Bull a temporary work assignment and, when that assignment ended, she was out of work on Workers’ Compensation. Bull returned to work with restrictions imposed by her health care provider that, in the view of UPS, made it impossible to assign her work. Thereafter, Bull submitted two notes, a few months apart, from a different health care provider. UPS found the two notes to be inconsistent and illegible and requested, but was never provided with, the originals. Bull did not respond to requests that she provide a new doctor’s note and more information, and her discrimination suit followed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Pennsylvania trial court recently became one of a growing number of courts to rule that a plaintiff’s non-public Facebook and MySpace postings are discoverable. On May 19, 2011, in Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., No. CV-09-1535, 2011 WL 2065410 (Pa. Comm. Pl. May 19, 2011) the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania granted the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant, to disclose his Facebook and MySpace passwords, user names and log in names. Notably, the Court reasoned that because the plaintiff voluntarily posted all of the pictures and information on his Facebook and MySpace sites, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy to the postings although the posts were on non-public pages.

Key to the Zimmerman Court’s decision was the fact that the defendant demonstrated that the public portions of the plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace pages contained postings and pictures directly contrary to the plaintiff’s claim that a work related accident had caused his health to be seriously and permanently impaired. The Court held that: (1) because the plaintiff had put his physical condition at issue, the defendant was entitled to “discovery thereon” and (2) based on a review of the publicly accessible portions of the plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace pages, there was a reasonable likelihood of additionally relevant information on the non-public portions of the social media sites. Specifically, despite the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he never wore shorts due to his embarrassment of a scar on his leg from the accident, the public portions of his MySpace page contained pictures of the plaintiff in shorts with his scar visible, as well as recent pictures of the plaintiff with his motorcycle. In addition, the public portions of the plaintiff’s Facebook page stated his interests included “ridin” and “bike stunts.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In this technology age, employees increasingly make personal use of workplace electronic communications applications. The legal ramifications of such personal use – and how employers can create policies that balance the right to monitor the workplace with employees’ expectations of privacy – were examined in an informative panel discussion, “Electronic Communications Policies in the Wake of Stengart and Quon” during Gibbons P.C.’s Fourth Annual E-Discovery Conference on October 28, 2010.

Discussion regarding Stengart

The panel kicked off with a discussion of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s March 30, 2010, ruling in Stengart v. Loving Care, which presented novel questions about the extent to which an employee could expect privacy and confidentiality in personal e-mails with her attorney that she accessed on a computer belonging to her employer. The Court held that an employee did not waive the attorney-client privilege when using a company computer to communicate with her attorney via a personal password-protected e-mail account, and that attorneys for the employer who failed to turn over the attorney-client communications found on the computer were subject to sanctions.

A panel member explained that Stengart does not prevent employers from implementing and enforcing unambiguous electronic communications policies or from monitoring employee communications pursuant to such policies. Nor does it prevent employers from imaging and reviewing the contents of an employee’s computer in conjunction with a lawsuit. Employers, however should refrain from reading any communications between an employee and her attorney uncovered as part of such reviews. For further discussion of the Stengart case, see the article co-authored by Richard Zackin and Kristin Sostowski.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Relevance. Scienter. Prejudice. These three themes permeated a roundtable discussion entitled, “Legal Hold Best Practices after Victor Stanley II, Pension Committee and Rimkus” during Gibbons Fourth Annual E-Discovery Conference on October 28, 2010, at Gibbons headquarters in Newark, New Jersey. A distinguished panel discussed legal hold best practices and lessons learned from recent decisions, including proactive measures and creative strategies for companies of all sizes to meet their e-discovery obligations. E-discovery preservation obligations have been a critical issue in employment litigation since Judge Scheindlin’s groundbreaking opinion in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg (in which the defendant/employer was sanctioned for failing to preserve documents in a sex discrimination case brought under Title VII).

The panel began the discussion by highlighting decisions from notable e-discovery cases from around the country, including Victor Stanley II, Pension Committee, and Rimkus. These recent cases currently stand as a litmus test against which litigation-hold policies are balanced.

Stressing the importance of these decisions, one panel member noted that a major step in implementing a successful litigation hold is to first understand where your information is located and how is it accessible. Only once that objective is met, can a company effectively implement a litigation hold that will withstand court scrutiny.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments/Questions
• Trackbacks
• Share Link