EMPLOYMENT LAW

Third Circuit Holds that Employer’s Access of Employee’s E-Mail Does Not Violate ECPA

The Third Circuit joins other federal circuits in ruling that an employer does not violate the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2501-2521 and 18 U.S.C. §§2710-2710 (“ECPA”), by accessing the employee’s e-mail.  Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. Dec. 10, 2003).  See the blurb discussing this case in the Computer Law page of our What's New section. 

COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND HOLDS THAT EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO PAYMENT OF COMMISSIONS MAY NOT BE CONDITIONED ON EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT

In the recent case of Medex v. McCabe, 811 A.2d 297 (2002), the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that an employee’s right to compensation vests when the employee does all that is required to earn his wages, without regard to the employee’s continued employment with the company. In this case, McCabe was employed by Medex as a sales representative. McCabe’s compensation consisted of a salary, plus incentive fees that were paid out under a series of incentive compensation plans. Medex’s employee manual provided that payment from all company incentive compensation plans was conditional upon, among other things, employment at the time of actual payment. McCabe earned certain incentive fees during the Fiscal Year ending January 31, 2000. Four days after the Fiscal Year ended, McCabe resigned. Payments under the incentive plan for the Fiscal Year ending January 31, 2000 did not occur until March 31, 2000. At that point, Medex refused to make payment to McCabe on the grounds that McCabe was no longer employed by the company. McCabe sued for payment of his fees. In its analysis, the Court of Appeals first determined that the incentive fees constitute "wages" under the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Act (the "Act") (Section 3-501, et seq. of the Labor and Employment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland). Having determined that the incentive fees constitute wages, the Court then turned to the question of whether the fees were owed to McCabe in light of the fact that he was no longer employed by the company at the time the fees were paid out. Relying upon the plain language of Section 3-505 of the Act, the Court of Appeals held that "where an employee earns wages under the Act, the employer must pay them, regardless of the ensuing termination of the employee. " 811 A.2d at 304. Therefore, the Court found that Medex’s policy in its employee handbook that payment of incentive fees was conditioned upon employment at the time of actual payment was not valid. The Court noted, however, that there is no enforceable contractual obligation when an employer offers to pay a bonus to an employee for doing that which the employee is already required to do.