Employee uses work computer to harass neighbor: Company liable?
November 13, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: Here comes the judge, Special Report
Imagine this: You provide an employee with a computer for work purposes and have a policy against using it for personal means. The employee uses it to harass someone, and now you’re facing a lawsuit.
We’re not making this up — here’s what happened in a recent case:
Thomas Kobinsky and David and Patricia Sigler were neighbors. One day, David yelled at Kobinsky for allowing his child to urinate in the Siglers’ yard.
After the incident, someone anonymously placed ads for a business allegedly run by the Siglers that they didn’t own. Someone also signed up the Siglers for various subscriptions.
Police traced the source of the harassment to a computer at CUNA Mutual Insurance and found mailings and products in Kobinsky’s garbage can at work that had been ordered for the Siglers.
The Siglers sued CUNA, alleging negligent supervision and training. They argued that CUNA had a duty to prevent its employees from using company computers to harass others.
CUNA claimed the negligence argument lacked merit.
Lawsuit thrown out
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed with CUNA and threw out the Siglers’ lawsuit.
The judge concluded that the Siglers didn’t show it was foreseeable that CUNA’s employees were likely to use company computers and access to the Internet to cause harm, specifically in this case to harass someone.
The court also said that even if CUNA had been negligent, the injury was too remote from the negligence. CUNA had no relationship with the Siglers.
Another interesting note about this case: The Siglers tried to use CUNA’s strict computer rules for employees against the company. They argued that because CUNA disciplined 14 of its employees in 2003 for Internet Technology related offenses, CUNA was aware of a foreseeable risk due to employee misuse of computers. The court didn’t buy that argument.
In effect, CUNA didn’t owe a duty to people with whom it didn’t have a connection to protect them from harassment from an employee using a company computer.
This case turns out well for companies: The court threw out the lawsuit.
But what if their employee had harassed another CUNA worker? Is it time for companies to update their policies to reflect that harassment can take place via computer? Let us know what you think. You can tell us your thoughts via the Comments Box below.
Sigler v. Kobinsky, Wisconsin Court of Appeals District IV, No. 2008AP29, 11/6/08.
Tags: computer, harassment, lawsuit, online
November 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I would suggest that “any” harassment between employees, computer or otherwise, should be dealt with according to internal harassment policies and EEOC guidelines the same as all other kinds of harassment.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:12 am
The article does not state whether the employee was disciplined. The litigator, if he/she did not do so, should have filed an action against the employee based on the computer usage policies of the employer. The employer should have commenced disciplinary action for misuse of company property. Suspension or termination is appropriate in such an extreme case.
Likewise, Thomas Kobinsky had legal recourse against his neighbor for allowing the child to commit a lewd act in public.
Evidently, no one in this case separated the forest from the trees.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I, too, wonder if the employee was disciplined. You’d think - if nothing else - that actions by an employee that reflect badly on the organization would be cause for some sort of disciplinary action. We have a policy in place that addresses that issue.
November 14th, 2008 at 11:59 am
The only way this case went to court was because the attorney against Cuna was after the big money he hoped to get from the “deepests pockets” (Cuna) for his attoney fees. I hope Cuna collected thier attorney fees for defending this case. Most HR law suites are brought because attorneys are out of control chasing companies with deep pockets.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
The reason this case went to court was because the attorney against CUNA was after the big money he hoped to get from the “deepest pockets” (CUNA) for his attorney fees. This should not be an HR matter. I hope CUNA collected thier attorney fees for defending this case. I think most HR litigation is brought because attorneys are out of control chasing companies with deep monetary pockets. No matter how complete our company policies are, there will always be these nonsense HR law suites.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I tend to agree with Walt that this was a case of a lawyer and clients trying to seek the big bucks. I reality however, the employee should be disciplined for abuse of company property. The offended party I would suspect has the right to seek damages in a civil suit against the employee for any and all expenses incurred.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Who is selling “Policies and Procedures for the Electronics Age?” Everytime I see an article like this, I feel like its another advertisement for something we don’t need.
In this case, if the Sigler’s had complained to the company that the source of the harassment was coming from one of their computers and staff, and the compnay took no action, I would say the company would be seen as complicite and would bear some liability.
But there is no evidence that the company did anything wrong. They had a policy against personal use of company equipment. We have one too. It covers ALL company equipment, not just computers. We also have a policy governing harassment of others and not doing anyhting that would bring discredit to the organization. Given the stated circumstances, this employee would most certainly have been suspended with a good possibility for termination.
This employee could have just as easily used the computer at a library or even a cell phone. When policies get so specific that they identify specific technologies, then they always will be inadequate because technology is always changing.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
A person has a responsibility for their actions. A company has a responsibility for the use of its resources. From what I read there were rules and regs in place in the company for use of technology based resources. If you tighten things to tight a resource is no longer a resource. If you take no steps as a company to control resource use then you are being irresponsible and should be held to a level of accountability. In this case I would have to agree that this is a lawsuit for cash situation, as long as the employee was NOT authorized to use company resources for this action AND the employee was disciplined in some reasonable manner, then I would say litigation against the company is with out merit.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I think there was a hell of a lot of noise for a little kid peeing in someone’s yard. Don’t folks have something better to do?