## Facts

- Michael A. Smyth was an at-will employee of The Pillsbury Company and served as a regional operations manager.
- Pillsbury maintained an internal email system for business communications.
- Pillsbury allegedly assured employees that email communications would remain confidential and would not be intercepted or used as grounds for discipline or termination.
- In October 1994, Smyth received work-related emails from his supervisor over Pillsbury’s system while at home and replied over the same system.
- Pillsbury intercepted Smyth’s emails and terminated his employment effective February 1, 1995 for what it viewed as inappropriate and unprofessional remarks, including violent and derogatory statements about co-workers and management.
- Smyth sued alleging wrongful discharge in violation of Pennsylvania public policy and an invasion of privacy based on the interception and use of his emails.

## Issues

1. Whether an at-will employee states a Pennsylvania wrongful discharge claim where an employer, despite assurances of confidentiality, intercepts and uses the employee’s work-related emails as the basis for termination.
2. Whether the employer’s interception and review of the employee’s emails constitutes an actionable invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) sufficient to supply a public-policy basis for a wrongful discharge claim.

## Decision

- The court granted Pillsbury’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The court held Smyth failed to plead a cognizable Pennsylvania public-policy wrongful discharge claim.
- The court held the alleged email monitoring did not constitute a tortious invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion), even assuming assurances of confidentiality.
- The court concluded Smyth lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in work-related messages transmitted over Pillsbury’s email system.
- The court further concluded the employer’s interception of the emails was not “highly offensive” to a reasonable person in the employment context, given the employer’s legitimate interests in maintaining appropriate internal communications and addressing threatening content.

## Legal Principles

- Pennsylvania generally provides no common-law wrongful discharge claim for at-will employees; the exception is limited to discharges that threaten or violate a clear mandate of public policy.
- Public policy for purposes of the exception must be clear and is derived from established legal sources (e.g., statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions), not merely perceived unfairness.
- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion into a private area or matter that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- Use of an employer-provided email system for work communications ordinarily does not create a reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient to support an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim, even where confidentiality assurances are alleged.
- Employer assurances about confidentiality or non-monitoring, without more, do not convert at-will employment into a relationship protected by the public-policy wrongful discharge doctrine.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed an at-will employee’s claims arising from employer monitoring of internal email, holding that monitoring and use of work-related emails to terminate employment did not amount to a highly offensive privacy intrusion and did not violate a clear Pennsylvania public policy.


Smyth v. Pillsbury Co., 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996)