Bill McLaren, Jr. V. Microsoft Corporation

Bill Mclaren, Jr. v. Microsoft Corporation

Introduction

In the United States, there is often a sense of freedom that is both enjoyed and expressed. This concept stems from the guiding principles of the new country's founding fathers. That foundation was created as a haven from oppression and the rights to live on their own. By extension the Amendments to the Constitution outlined specific liberties and freedoms that should be expected from the people of this new country.

One of the expectations that many people have is a sense they should have a right to privacy. While this is not unreasonable, as it has been narrowly provided for under the due process portion of the fourteenth amendment, it is not all encompassing. In the end the right to privacy has mainly been provided for personal and procreation rights, and otherwise on a case-by-case decision.

So with people feeling entitled to a right to privacy, is it almost inevitable that differences of opinions would occur in the workplace, and court cases would be raised dealing with an employee's right to privacy. The question that needs to be answered is where a corporation's rights and employee's rights are differentiated. Should employees have a reasonable expectation to privacy? Should companies have a reasonable right to access their employees various tools in the workplace?

Case Problem

In the privacy court case, Bill McLaren Jr. v. Microsoft Corporation, the main contention is whether a business has the right to intrude on a worker's privacy as it relates to personal emails. According to Beatty and Samuelson (2005), privacy rights can be violated under common law if the intrusion into the private life would be found offensive by a reasonable person. Bill McLaren Jr. was an employee of Microsoft who was under accusation for sexual harassment and suspicion of inventory issues. As the accusations were investigated, McLaren was denied access to his emails unless he specifically requested them and it was authorized. He sent a memorandum to Microsoft to not tamper with his workstation or his personal email folder. Microsoft later fired McLaren after their investigation was completed. Bill McLaren Jr. brought the court case against Microsoft for invasion of privacy as they entered into his computer and emails, which were password protected on the computer.

Analysis

After analyzing this case, there are some strong foundations for each side of the case. Each side has certain facts and inferences that are presented and that make a solid basis for their arguments. For example, on the employee's side of the case, he did have a personal email folder that was under a password protection to prevent casual access. Bill Mclaren Jr. has also sent a memo to Microsoft stating to not tamper with is office workstation or his emails. On appeals, McLaren Jr. also makes the claim that by providing employees with personal email access and by allowing employees to password protection, Microsoft presented an aspect of privacy protection that should have been honored. On the other side of the fence, Microsoft Corporation has equally strong arguments for the fact that a right to privacy did not exist. These arguments include the fact that the workstation and email system were designed and provided for by Microsoft for business use and that under Texas law, there was no provision for privacy. There is also the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which provides the right for an employer to monitor a worker's email messages as long as the employer provided the email system in the first place (Beatty & Samuelson, 2005).

The argument for both sides, reside in the definition of privacy and the reasonable expectations of having privacy at the workplace. McLaren Jr. uses a prior court case involving the right to privacy where the employee's rights were violated. In K-Mart Corp. Store No. 7441 v. Trotti, the company provided a locker for storing personal belongings while at work, and the employee bought a lock for the door to prevent outside access. By having a lock on the door, the employee was expecting and the company should have recognized the privacy. McLaren argued only the types of technology were different as once he set a password for his emails, Microsoft should no longer have had access.

Alternatives

By comparing the stances taken by the involved parties in this court case, it is possible to find a few options that could have provided a better outcome. First and foremost, knowing the company provided the electronic equipment, McLaren should have avoided keeping any sensitive information, regardless as to whether it could help or hinder, on his computer. Emails do not invoke a sense of confidentiality as it is transmitted across networks and servers and in the end can be forwarded to others. There is no guarantee of email confidentiality nor should it be expected. Microsoft itself should have either prevented the creation of private mailboxes with passwords or have been more clear up front that the systems and any use of them can be monitored at any time. Either of the options would have prevented the apparent breach that McLaren took to court to challenge his privacy right. And finally, Microsoft could have worked with McLaren upon the initial charges of impropriety against him. McLaren claimed emails on his workstation would prove him innocent, but Microsoft made it difficult for