Want to stay current on e–commerce law? Sign up for Email Newsletter.
US Court Says No to Employment Notification Sent via Email
In a June 3rd Memorandum and Order regarding the case of Campbell v. General Dynamics and Schnorbus, the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts addressed the question of whether an employer can use email to notify an employee about a new and mandatory employment policy. The court found that a mass email alone was not enough to ensure a high level of notice and to communicate the significance of the policy. The motion of the defendants was dismissed as a result.
The plaintiff Campbell, who suffers from sleep apnea, had been employed by the defendant, General Dynamics, from February 2000 until December 2002 when he was terminated. He alleged that his termination was due to his disability and filed a charge of discrimination which was removed to federal court by the defendants in September 2003. In November 2003, the defendants filed a motion asserting that their Dispute Resolution Policy (DRP) became effective on May 1, 2001, that Campbell was bound by it and that he was therefore required to refer his claim to mandatory arbitration. On this basis, the defendants asked to stay all federal court proceedings and compel arbitration.
The defendant sent a mass email to all its employees on April 30, 2001. Although the subject line contained the name of the company president, there was nothing indicating that the email was of critical importance. The text was vague in its description of the DRP and made no mention at all of the impact the policy would have on employees' rights to a judicial hearing. The email contained two links, one to a summary of key provisions of the DRP and another to a 26 page handbook detailing the provisions of the DRP. General Dynamics presented as evidence a "tracking log" which indicated that the plaintiff opened the email, but presented nothing to suggest that he clicked on either of the links to the DRP policies.
The court found that while an agreement to arbitrate does not have to be signed, an employee must at least have actual notice of the policy for it to be enforceable. After referring to several recognized methods of ensuring such notice, including regular mailing, office memoranda and office-wide meetings with sign-in sheets, the court found that "General Dynamics seemed to have done as little as it could to ensure their employees were informed of a program that substantially affected their employee's legal rights."
Noting the volume of email received by most employees and the frivolous nature of much of it, the court found that "receiving an email in a virtual mailbox is not the same as receiving a letter in a real mailbox" and, "[s]howing that someone opened an email is not the same as showing that they acknowledged it." The court concluded, "sending a mass email message, without more, fails to constitute the minimal level of notice required". Moreover, given the defendant's failure to configure its system to log when and if employees accessed the electronic links and its decision not to require an electronic signature or return email acknowledging the policy, the court found that even the available email technology could have been better utilized.
In sum, the court held that when communicating important employment information to employees, employers must ensure that adequate measures are taken to provide a high level of notice and to convey the importance of the content. Mass email alone, is not capable of achieving this.
For a copy of the decision, visit:
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/gertner/pdf/campbell.pdf