## Facts

- John Hancock maintained a written email policy prohibiting, among other things, “sexually oriented” messages and warning that violations could result in discipline up to termination.
- The policy stated all information on the company email system was company property and that management reserved the right to access all email files; it also stated email usage was not intentionally inspected absent business or legal need.
- Nancy Garrity and Joanne Clark, employees, received sexually explicit emails on their work computers from third parties (including Nancy Garrity’s husband, Arthur Garrity) and forwarded such messages to coworkers.
- After a coworker complained, John Hancock investigated by reviewing stored emails in plaintiffs’ folders and in the folders of employees with whom they frequently exchanged email, including password-protected “personal folders.”
- The company concluded the messages violated the “sexually oriented” prohibition and terminated the employees.
- Plaintiffs sued for invasion of privacy, violation of the Massachusetts Wiretap Act (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99), wrongful discharge, and defamation.

## Issues

1. Whether employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails stored on the employer’s system, including in password-protected personal folders, sufficient to support an invasion-of-privacy claim.
2. Whether the employer’s access to stored emails after delivery constituted an unlawful “interception” under the Massachusetts Wiretap Act.
3. Whether the terminations and related communications supported claims for wrongful discharge or defamation under Massachusetts law.

## Decision

- The court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on all claims and dismissed the action.
- On invasion of privacy, the court held plaintiffs lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails stored on the company system given the written policy reserving ownership and access rights and the surrounding circumstances.
- On the Massachusetts Wiretap Act claim, the court held the employer did not “intercept” communications because it reviewed messages only after they were received and stored, not during transmission.
- The court also entered summary judgment for the employer on wrongful discharge and defamation.

## Legal Principles

- An invasion-of-privacy claim based on workplace email review fails where, in light of an employer’s policy and notice to employees, any expectation of privacy in emails stored on the employer’s system is not reasonable.
- Password protection or labeling a folder as “personal” does not create a reasonable expectation of privacy when an employer’s policy states the system and its contents are company property and subject to management access.
- Under the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, accessing stored electronic communications after receipt is not an “interception”; the statute targets acquisition contemporaneous with transmission.
- Termination for violation of a communicated workplace policy does not, without more, establish wrongful discharge under a public-policy theory, and internal statements connected to discipline may not support defamation absent actionable false publication.

## Conclusion

The court held that employees could not reasonably expect privacy in emails stored on an employer-controlled system governed by a policy reserving employer access, and that reviewing stored emails after delivery is not an interception under the Massachusetts Wiretap Act; it therefore granted summary judgment for the employer on all claims.


Garrity v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8343 (D. Mass. 2002)