In November 2023, a Greenville federal jury found that a South Carolina company violated federal law by accessing an employee’s personal Gmail account and printing hundreds of her private emails. Although the jury found no actual damages, the case serves as an important reminder that employers do not have unlimited rights to access an employee’s personal accounts simply because those accounts were accessed on a work computer.
Way back in September 2023, I actually blogged about this employee’s privacy case involving a company’s access of the employee’s personal gmail account on a company computer. [Read More: Can a SC Company Look at Personal Emails or Text Messages?]
At that point in time, the case had gone up to the court of appeals, who then sent the case back down for the actual trial. The trial took place over three days in November 2023 in Greenville federal court. After deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the employee, finding that the company HAD violated the Stored Communications Act by unlawfully accessing her personal gmail account and printing off hundreds of her personal emails. [Read More: Jury Verdict Form, Carson v. EmergencyMD]
However, the jury also found that the employee has suffered no actual damages (i.e., no monetary loss of money). In effect, she won, but got no dollars awarded to her.
The Stored Communications Act Provides for the Payment of Attorney’s Fees and Costs to the Prevailing Plaintiff
But all of this took place two and half years ago, so why am I just now blogging about it? Well, the Stored Communications Act (SCA) provides for the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the plaintiff if she is successful at trial. That means that the attorney who brought the case may still get paid, even if the jury found no damages for the plaintiff employee. The judge just ruled on the attorney’s fee issue just a few weeks. [Read More: Judge’s Order on Attorney’s Fees, Carson v. EmergencyMD]
The employee’s attorney filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs in late November 2023, requesting an award of approximately $180,000. These types of attorney’s fee awards are calculated based on an hourly rate set that must be reasonable and approved by the court, multiplied by the number of hours that the attorney spent on the successful claim. In this case, the employee had brought many different claims against the company and individuals, but by the end, only the SCA claim against the company remained to be decided by the jury. All other claims and parties were dismissed before jury deliberations.
What’s notable about this award is not the amount of money granted to the employee’s attorney, but rather the amount of time it took for the court’s decision to be entered. The lawsuit was filed in May 2020, and the trial took place in November 2023. The court’s final order on attorney’s fees was issued in May 2026, nearly six years after the case began. That’s a long time for a party to wait for a result.
Ultimately, the court awarded only $75,000 in attorney’s fees to the employee’s lawyer, along with $5,000 or so in costs. I would expect some sort of appeal, although there’s always the possibility that the parties just settle the claim before that. If not, we’ll likely get another court of appeals decision in the next year or two in follow up.
What Does this Case Mean Employee Privacy in the Workplace?
For the specifics of the case as to employee privacy, I will say that this jury verdict is a strong reminder to companies that just because an employee uses a work computer to access personal email, that does not mean that the company has a right to go in and read all of those emails. The Stored Communications Act certainly applies to that sort of wrongful behavior, as this jury determined. Even if the jury did not issue a huge verdict, you know that the company paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the lawsuit.
Another takeaway for South Carolina employees is simply the length of litigation. It can be hard to fathom just how long it can take for these cases to make their way through the litigation process (exchange of documents, depositions, motion hearings), the actual jury trial, and then all the legal arguments that follow after. I normally estimate two to three years for an employment claim in federal court, depending on how long it takes the trial judge to rule on certain motions. But as this case demonstrates, you could also be looking at something as long as six years to get a final result from a jury trial. Appeals can add additional time. It’s no wonder that parties would often rather settle than spend that amount of time and money waiting for a result.
It’s also a reminder to employees to make sure you keep work and personal separate when it comes to computers and other devices. If you are issued a work laptop or computer, do not treat it as your personal device. Keep your information stored on your personal devices only. Don’t mix the two. If you do, you’re opening yourself up to illegal access by a prying employer.
Importantly, this case does not mean that employees have unlimited privacy rights on company computers. Employers generally have broad authority to monitor and review information stored on company-owned devices. What made this case unusual was the employer’s access to the employee’s personal Gmail account, which the jury ultimately concluded violated the Stored Communications Act.
If your information has been illegally accessed by your employer, please reach to Summerlin Law for a consultation. You have certain privacy rights in the workplace, but you need to be proactive in protecting those rights. You can contact me at (864) 278-5389 or via our Contact Page.
