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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more