1].What, if any, are an employee's reasonable expectations of privacy while at work?

In order to minimise losses companies implement the monitoring system in the organisation. And an employee cannot expect any security or privacy about monitoring in an organisation working area as well as organisation email channel. But he can expect privacy in restrooms. He can also feel secure while using his cell phone in office. He has a right to privacy during lunch and out of office hours. 2]. How did Judge Weiner balance the interests of the plaintiff (i.e., reasonable expectation of privacy) against the company's interest in preventing inappropriate and unprofessional comments over its e-mail system? Court rejected the contention of plaintiff that such an act would amount to violation of privacy rights, as the communication email system between the employees was for communicating corporateand other information which is directly and indirectly related to organisations work. Also the defendant had in no case allowed the plaintiff and other employees to disclose any private information in the public system. And Once the information is disclosed in a public information knowingly then it is no more remain private. Also The court prioritised the interest of the Organisation of eliminating the unreasonable, inappropriate and unprofessional information than the privacy of the individual who after knowing the validity of a public domain passed on the private message. A mere promise by employer of not reading the messages by employee would not stop him to maintain control over inappropriate messages which are no where related to the business matter. Reference while giving judgement was cited from the famous case of Paul v. Lankenau Hospital, in which the appeal filed by an employee was denied because he was discharged or terminated by an employer on legal grounds. 3] Do you agree that Mr. Smyth's comments were inappropriate in the factual scenario presented? Comments made by Mr.smyth were inappropriate. Though he was assured by his employer that all the e-mail communications would remain confidential and privileged and also the email could be intercepted as the ground of termination from the job, but he knew that the communication was only for corporate and business purpose and thus a public domain for all the employees. He should not have passed on the private information which is no where related to the business. From the time he knowingly passed the confidential and inappropriate information in public domain, it no longer would be considered as privacy in the eyes of law. 4].What was the exception Judge Weiner set forth to the Pennsylvania employment-at-will doctrine? The Smyth decision reviewed the three exceptions to Pennsylvania's rule denying a wrongful discharge cause of action for at-will employees. An exception is only created when the termination of the employee threatens or violates a clear mandate of public policy. The three exceptions are: an employee may not be fired for serving jury duty employment may not be denied to a person with a prior conviction and an employee may not be terminated for reporting federal regulation violations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The court

stressed that public policy, without legislative guidance, must be determined on a case by case basis and is found in administrative rules, regulations, and judicial decisions 5]. Why is a federal court using Pennsylvania state law? US originally had 13 federal judiciary districts by the judiciary act 1789. And United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania one of them. So the court had jurisdiction to deal with the matters of Pennsylvania even though it was a federal court. That is the reason, it was using Pennsylvania state law because it was US court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.