There are many people who text at work. The technology is ubiquitous in developed nations, and because many people spend the majority of their waking lives in the workplace, it stands to reason that there will be quite a few occasions when workers resort to texting at work, regardless of employer policy. The question of whether these communications should be private has been addressed by the Supreme Court in the California City of Ontario vs. Quon decision, reports the Los Angeles Times.
Texting at work – Understand your employer’s policy
Police Sgt. Jeff Quon sent a lot of personal messages via a work pager, and subsequently attempted to invoke his Fourth Amendment right to protection against illegal search and seizure when his superiors accessed the texting at work evidence. The Supreme Court ruled with a 9-0 in favor of the Ontario Police chief, claiming that since there was reason to believe a work policy was being violated, his search of Jeff Quon’s texts did not violate Quon’s constitutional rights. The court decided that the search was a reasonable one.
Sgt. Jeff Quon could lose a lot
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that a police sergeant earns about $50,000 per year, although the figure can be higher depending upon experience, locality and other factors. If Sgt. Jeff Quon was placed on some manner of unpaid leave for his texting at work escapades, he’d probably end up seeking sources of fast cash. The Times explains that as it stands, he had already won an appeal against the Ontario Police Department via the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court decided they would overturn the decision.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said the search had ‘a legitimate work-related purpose’
Arch Wireless, the contractor that handled the Ontario Police Department’s text paging system, was subpoenaed to release Sgt. Quon’s racy personal messages to his wife and a girlfriend, reports the L.A. Times. Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court ruled that the search was justified since it was on work-related grounds and was not unreasonable. Interestingly, Quon’s immediate supervisor had told him that he could use the pager for personal messages as long as he was willing to pay all of the extra fees. Yet the nature of said personal messages by Jeff Quon warranted there to be some kind of investigation, in the Supreme Court’s view.
City of Ontario vs. Quon is reportedly the first case on record to involve privacy issues regarding texting at work via an employee-issued device.
More information on this topic
Los Angeles Times
latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-worker-texting-20100618,0,7772406.story
Bureau of Labor Statistics
bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm
Other examples of inappropriate texting at work: (WARNING: Some inappropriate language can be heard)
History of the Predictive Text Swearing
youtube.com/watch?v=6hcoT6yxFoU
