Employee Internet Use: Torts, Crimes & Employer Liability
This paper presents a legal consultation prepared for a Fortune 500 CEO addressing the implications of employee internet use in the workplace. It examines torts employees may commit online, including privacy violations and harassment, through analysis of key cases such as Smyth v. Pillsbury and United States v. Simons. The paper also covers possible criminal offenses—including wire fraud and unauthorized computer access—and the doctrine of respondeat superior as it applies to corporate liability. Additionally, it addresses social media misconduct, employee privacy rights under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and concludes with practical policy recommendations for balancing employer oversight with employee rights.
- Torts Employees May Commit Using Workplace Internet: Key tort cases involving workplace internet misuse
- Possible Crimes That Could Be Committed by Employees: Cyber crimes and statutes governing online employee misconduct
- Corporate vs. Employee Liability: Respondeat superior doctrine and employer exposure
- Violations Through Social Media: Social media misconduct and duty of loyalty cases
- Privacy Rights of Employees: Balancing monitoring rights against employee privacy
- Employment Law and Policy Recommendations: Practical internet use policies and legal safeguards
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses real court cases (Smyth v. Pillsbury, United States v. Simons, Hahn v. Onboard) to ground abstract legal concepts in concrete precedent, making the analysis persuasive and authoritative.
- Covers multiple legal dimensions—tort law, criminal law, corporate liability, privacy law—in a coherent progression that mirrors how a real legal consultation would be structured.
- Ends with actionable policy recommendations, giving the paper practical value beyond academic analysis and demonstrating applied legal reasoning.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates case-based legal reasoning: it introduces a legal principle or doctrine, cites a specific case that illustrates it, and then draws a broader conclusion applicable to the workplace setting. This inductive approach—from specific precedent to general policy guidance—is characteristic of applied legal writing and makes the argument both credible and readable.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into six sections following a logical progression: (1) tort liability from employee internet use, (2) potential criminal offenses, (3) corporate liability under respondeat superior, (4) social media-specific misconduct, (5) employee privacy rights and monitoring law, and (6) recommended workplace policies. Each section builds on the last, moving from identifying legal risks to explaining who bears liability and finally prescribing protective measures for the employer.
Torts Employees May Commit Using Workplace Internet
This consultation has been prepared for the CEO of a Fortune 500 company regarding the use of the internet by its employees. It examines internet usage patterns in the workplace and identifies possible ways to reduce illegal or improper use of company internet resources.
There are quite a number of torts that could be committed by employees in the workplace. Several legal cases have demonstrated these torts. One prominent example is Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company, heard in the Federal Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In that case, the plaintiff, Michael Smyth, filed a lawsuit against his former employer, The Pillsbury Company, claiming wrongful discharge after the company fired him for sending electronic mails it considered unprofessional and inappropriate through its internet system (Muhl, 2003). Because Smyth was an at-will employee, his lawsuit ultimately concerned whether his discharge had contravened the state's "public policy" and thus qualified as an exception to the general rule permitting the termination of at-will employees for any reason at any time.
The Federal Eastern District Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for the plaintiff's failure to state a claim. The court ruled that The Pillsbury Company had not committed the tort of invading the employee's privacy and therefore had not violated public policy in discharging Smyth. This case illustrates that harassment torts can also be raised against employees who misuse workplace communications systems.
In another significant case, United States v. Simons, initially filed in the Federal Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, the federal government prosecuted Mark Simons, a Central Intelligence Agency employee, for violating federal child pornography laws. Simons, a staff member at the CIA's Foreign Bureau of Information Services, allegedly used the agency's computer systems and internet access to break the law. During a routine audit of its systems, the agency discovered that its computer network had recorded a high volume of external activity. The systems manager searched the network's activity logs using the term "sex," believing the search would reveal inappropriate conduct (Muhl, 2003).
The search proved fruitful, returning several hits traced to Simons's workstation. As the investigation continued without notifying the subject, an IT specialist was directed to access Simons's computer remotely to determine whether he had downloaded any inappropriate files or images. That search also returned numerous files that the systems manager classified as pornographic (Muhl, 2003). This case demonstrates that employees may also commit torts and crimes related to pornography and child protection laws. Taken together, these cases show that employees can engage in a wide variety of tortious conduct using workplace internet resources.
References
Adams, C. (2004). The right of privacy of employees with respect to employer-owned computers and e-mails. The Oklahoma Bar Journal, 75(28).
Frayer, C. (2002). Employee privacy and internet monitoring: Balancing workers' rights and dignity with legitimate management interests. Business Lawyer, 57(2), 857–878.
Human Resources Management: Employment Tips and Samples (n.d.). Sample internet and email policy for employees.
Muhl, C. (2003). Workplace e-mail and internet use: Employees and employers beware. Monthly Labor Review, 36.
Rasch, M. (1996). Criminal law and the internet. In The internet and business: A lawyer's guide to the emerging legal issues. Computer Law Association.
Tucker Law Group (n.d.). Employer liability for improper computer use by employees.
Warren, M., & Pedowitz, A. (2011). Social media, trade secrets, duties of loyalty, restrictive covenants and yes, the sky is falling. Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal, 29(1).
Yerby, J. (2013). Legal and ethical issues of employee monitoring. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 1(2).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.