New Jersey Court Holds That an Employer Can Be Liable for Employee's Possession of Child Pornography.


Facts of the Case

In Doe v. XYC Corp., 887 A.2d 1156 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005), the Superior Court of New Jersey addressed whether an employer, who is aware of its employee's use of his workplace computer to access pornography, has a duty to investigate that activity and take prompt and effective remedial action to prevent potential harm to third parties. In Doe, an employee of XYC Corp. ("XYC") used his work computer and internet connection to send nude pictures of his 10-year-old step-daughter to a pornographic web site. Prior to the employee's arrest for possession of child pornography, co-workers had complained to upper-management at XYC on several occasions concerning the employee viewing pornographic images on his workplace computer. After one such complaint, a XYC supervisor obtained the domain names of the websites that the employee had visited and recognized several domain names as pornographic websites. In fact, several web sites that the employee had visited even referred to children and young teenagers in their domain names. However, the supervisor did not visit any of these web sites or investigate further. The supervisor then met with the employee and instructed him to cease the inappropriate computer usage. After this meeting, the employee appeared to stop his activities for a brief period of time. However, the same supervisor later noticed that the employee had started visiting pornographic web sites again. The XYC supervisor did not inform anyone at XYC about the employee's resumed activities until after the employee's arrest in June 2001. After the employee's arrest, the mother of the 10-year-old child sued XYC, alleging that XYC had acted negligently in failing to discipline the employee or report the employee's suspicious activity to law enforcement authorities.

Throughout the employee's employment, XYC had an employee e-mail policy in place. The XYC policy stated that e-mails were the property of the company and were not confidential. Under the policy, XYC reserved the right to "review, audit, access, and disclose all messages created, received, and sent over the e-mail system." In addition, the policy stated that anyone with knowledge of the misuse of the internet for other than business purposes must report the misuse to the personnel department.

The Court's Opinion

The New Jersey Superior Court's Appellate Division held that XYC had acted negligently in failing to investigate and take prompt, remedial action to stop the employee's improper computer usage. In reaching this decision, the court focused on the following issues:

1. Whether XYC had the ability to monitor the employee's use of the internet on his office computer;
2. Whether XYC had the right to monitor the employee's activities;
3. Whether XYC knew or should have known that the employee was using the office computer to view child pornography; and
4. Whether XYC had a duty to act to prevent the employee from continuing his activities.

The court answered each issue in the affirmative. The court first noted that XYC admitted that it could have installed software that could monitor its employees' computer usage. The fact that XYC management had conducted a limited investigation into the domain names of the websites that the employee had visited also demonstrated that XYC had the ability to monitor his internet activities. Next, the court stated that the promulgation and distribution of the XYC e-mail policy to all employees demonstrated that the employee had no expectation of privacy in e-mail communication from his office computer. Therefore, the court held that XYC had the right to monitor the employee's activities.

The court then addressed whether XYC through its management and supervisors was on notice of the employee's inappropriate computer use. The evidence showed that XYC received numerous complaints concerning the employee's internet activities and had actual knowledge of several pornographic domain names that the employee had visited. Therefore, the court held that XYC was on notice of the employee's improper and illegal computer use. Finally, the court held that XYC did have a duty to act upon its knowledge of the employee's illegal activity by either terminating the employee or notifying the police. The court noted that public policy both against child pornography and in favor of exposing crime supported a finding that the employer had a duty to act. The court held that an employer must exercise reasonable care to prevent its employees from using the employer's property intentionally to harm third parties.

Implications for Employers

Employers must ensure that they have an effective internet policy in place and that the policy is actually enforced. An effective internet policy should inform employees that e-mail and other electronic communications including internet usage are not confidential and remain the property of the employer. The policy should state that the employer reserves the right to monitor the internet usage of all employees. Employers should then distribute the policy to all employees and require a signed acknowledgement that the employee has received a copy of the policy. Employers should provide adequate training both to employees and supervisors concerning the internet policy and the potential consequences for violations of it.

With an effective internet policy in place, employers should investigate any complaint or other information regarding an employee's improper or illegal use of the employer's computer system and internet service. If an investigation does produce evidence of improper or illegal internet usage, the employer should take immediate remedial action. Appropriate remedial action for improper internet use can take the form of internal discipline such as written warnings, suspensions, or terminations. However, if the employee's internet activity is illegal, rather than just improper, the employer should notify the appropriate law enforcement authorities in addition to any internal discipline administered to the employee.