(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this employment discrimination/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Unfortunately for Kaiser’s defense, there is no policy against, or harm caused by, printing a draft work-related memorandum from her supervisor’s screen:
1) Kaiser’s Principles of Responsibility contain no language that would preclude Ms. Church from printing a letter about her that was publicly visible in an open cubicle and bringing that letter to Kaiser’s Chief Operating Officer.
2) Ms. Church’s act of printing the letter about her could not, in any way, violate Richard White’s right to privacy. Mr. White has no cognizable right to privacy with regard to a work related correspondence about someone else. In fact, Kaiser’s own Principles of Responsibility and Electronic Assets Usage policy make it clear that employee privacy does not extend to conduct in the work place or to the use of Kaiser Permanente’s assets.
3) There is nothing in Kaiser’s Electronic Usage Policy that precluded Ms. Church from printing a visible document about her and taking it to the Chief Operating Officer of the hospital.
The violations of Kaiser’s Electronic Usage Policy were by Richard White:
a. He failed to prevent access to his computer.
b. He failed to “avoid leaving…business information open/accessible by employing password-activated screen savers.”
And, yet, Mr. White received no discipline whatsoever. Interestingly, Kaiser’s Electronic Assets Usage policy also states Users who identify security issues should report them immediately. In Ms. Church’s case, that line should be followed by: “…and subsequently be terminated.” (See Part 4 of 11.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.