Skip to main content

Fired Employee Deletes Entire Inbox Before Leaving: Now What?


Many employers have been in this boat before:  An employee is fired and before the employee actually leaves the office, turns in company equipment, etc., the fired employee erases his/her entire inbox.  The question then arises for employers:  Ok, now what?

Without a doubt, this type of action by a fired employee can become a major headache for employers.  Luckily, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") provides some guidance, and grounds upon which an employer can sue the fired employee.  The CFAA is designed to prevent unauthorized access or malicious interference with a computer system.  

In order for an employer to state a valid claim under the CFAA, the employer must show that an employee actually caused damage to its computer or data system.  The CFAA defines "damage" as any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information.  However, this can often be a difficult hurdle for employers to clear.  Take for example the employee who deletes his/her entire inbox.  If the deleted e-mails are still in the Deleted Item box and/or company server (and not wiped away entirely), the employer likely cannot prove that the employee caused damage to its computer or data system, as the e-mails are still there.  If the employee actually went ahead and deleted the e-mails from everywhere (and the employer cannot access them anywhere), then there could be grounds for an employer to establish damages under the CFAA. 

Although it seems straight forward, employers should have a policy in place and remind employees that work e-mails are company property and should not be deleted/erased completely unless authorized to do so. 


Link to the text of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more