Smyth v pillsbury research

Pa 1996) Michael A. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company (1996) is a law case that was decided in 1996 by the District Judge in the United States District Court. Earlier, Smyth was the operations manager at the Pillsbury Company. Being the company’s operational manager, he had the company email such that he could excess information from it while at home and work. The Judge granted the motion where the Plaintiff and Defendant through their lawyers can defend themselves. Judge Wiener stated, “A claim may be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. In October 1994, the defendant intercepted Smyth’s privacy using the company’s agents, employees, and servants. After that, the defendant made a betraying decision on 17th January 1995, notifying the Plaintiff that he to be discharged from his positions as the regional operations manager.

The termination was to be effective from 1st February 1995. The defendant claimed that the Plaintiff had misbehaved by making improper and unprofessional comments over the company’s official email system. According to the defendant, such unprofessional comments degraded reputations of the company.   Judge Weiner referred to the three exceptions of the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The first exception states that employees need not be discharged for practicing jury duty. This rule was applied in the case, “Reuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc (1978). The court cited Pennsylvania statutes and Pennsylvania constitution when ruling the essence allowing freedom for citizens to be available for jury service which is recognized as the public policy by the Supreme court. The Plaintiff directed the court’s attention to rely on a decision made by the court of Appeals when ruling on the case, Borse v.

Piece Goods Shop, Inc, (1992). In this case, Borse sued Piece Goods Shop for being wrongly discharged because she refused to undergo urinalysis screening and property surveillance according to the requirements of the shop’s drug policy. The court of Appeals rejected Borse’s argument that her employer had violated public policy as contained in the US and Pennsylvania common law. Judge Weiner revealed that some circumstances may give rise to discharge, concerning wrongly discharge seen in urinalysis and search of private property. Therefore, there is no privacy in that communication. Since the Pillsbury company did not invade Smyth’s privacy or violate public policy, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case.   I think this case was rightfully ruled. Even if the company was responsible for the violation of the Smyth’s privacy and public policy, there is no way it can accuse it because Smyth was aware of that he is making unprofessional comments in public (the company email system which is accessed by all employees and other servants in Pillsbury company).

There no reasonable point to consider the interception of Smyth’s employer tortious invading of privacy and violation of public policy.     Works Cited Justia. Smyth v. Pillsbury Co. F. Supp. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company, 914 F. Supp. E. D.