SHARE



ABOUT THE AUTHOR


Josh Bouk
SHARE



Josh Bouk | July 09, 2015 |

 
   

Essential BYOD Legal Considerations

Essential BYOD Legal Considerations Understanding how the courts see communications conducted via personal devices for work purposes is growing in importance as the BYOD trend continues.

Understanding how the courts see communications conducted via personal devices for work purposes is growing in importance as the BYOD trend continues.

Many legal concerns surface when implementing a BYOD program. Recent court decisions, however, offer a blueprint for avoiding some of the more common pitfalls.

Device wiping, for example, is a crucial issue to consider. If business data is not stored separately from the user's personal data, the employer's only option is to wipe the entire device clean. But personal devices, by their very nature, contain personal data, like pictures, emails and contacts -- and employers can encounter serious risks when they remove that personal property from an employee's device.

For guidance on device wiping, we can look to Rajaee v. Design Tech Homes, Ltd. In this case, a district court found that personal data stored on an iPhone is not protected by the Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). However, the court did not rule on the plaintiff's state claims, which included violations of the Texas Theft Liability Act, negligence and conversion. Given this, the employer is not in the clear yet.

Closely related is the issue of privacy. In Garcia v. City of Laredo, Tex., a former police dispatcher claimed her cell phone was accessed without her permission while in an unlocked locker in the Laredo Police Department. The lawsuit was premised on violations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which outlines privacy protections for email and other digital communications stored on the Internet. Here, however, the district court relied on an earlier decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in determining that the SCA "does not apply to data stored in a personal cell phone."

Along those lines, in Lazette v. Kulmatycki, a former Verizon employee (Lazette) alleged that her former supervisor read thousands of her personal email messages (some of which she had never opened herself) by accessing the corporate-owned BlackBerry device she had recently turned back in to the company. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court emphasized the email account -- not the device itself -- was subject to the SCA, so denied the motion regarding the violation related to the unopened emails (those first opened by the supervisor), as they were on the email provider's servers and, therefore, in "electronic storage" before being opened.

In the event of a lawsuit, companies may be required to produce records, including employee emails and text messages. Courts take a strong stand if that property -- or electronic information -- is destroyed or otherwise not produced. In Small v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., the special master appointed by the court to hear issues pertaining to discovery found the defendant failed to properly issue and maintain a litigation hold (a directive to preserve potentially relevant evidence). The devices under the defendant's BYOD policy alone resulted in the destruction of over two years of messages and other information. The relevancy of that data can only be speculated, but the prejudice to the plaintiffs was real, leading the special master to recommend that the court enter an order of default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

In terms of BYOD, though, no case has been discussed more than Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc. (read related post, Court Puts Employers on Notice About Mobile Use). In the class action case, the court, relying on Section 2802 of California's Labor Code, ruled that an employer must reimburse employees for the mandatory use of their personal cell phone for work-related purposes -- whether or not any additional expense is incurred by the employee.

While a court's ruling in one state is not binding on another state's court, these cases are instructive and, in some instances, involve a federal statute that is binding on every state. And while nothing can guarantee absolute protection from litigation, organizations that commit to employee education, openness, and diligence in their compliance processes will be less likely to see the inside of a court. To accomplish that, companies should seriously consider:

  1. Establishing a policy that separately addresses devices owned by the company and those owned by the employee (BYOD)
  2. Employing a user-friendly Web platform for self-service enrollment, registration and policy acceptance
  3. Paying employees a subsidy for use of their own personal devices
  4. Relying on BYOD experts to help develop the policy and manage the program

Josh Bouk is Vice President of Sales and Marketing for the Expense Management Division of Cass Information Systems.





COMMENTS



Enterprise Connect Orlando 2017
March 27-30 | Orlando, FL
Connect with the Entire Enterprise Communications & Collaboration Ecosystem


Stay Up-to-Date: Hear industry visionaries in Keynotes and General Sessions delivering the latest insight on UC, mobility, collaboration and cloud

Grow Your Network: Connect with the largest gathering of enterprise IT and business leaders and influencers

Learn From Industry Leaders: Attend a full range of Conference Sessions, Free Programs and Special Events

Evaluate All Your Options: Engage with 190+ of the leading equipment, software and service providers

Have Fun! Mingle with sponsors, exhibitors, attendees, guest speakers and industry players during evening receptions

Special Offer - Save $200 Off Advance Rates

Register now with code NOJITTEREB to save $200 Off Advance Rates or get a FREE Expo Pass!

March 8, 2017

Enterprise IT's ability to innovate is critical to the success of the business -- 80% of CIOs agree. But the CIO role has never been more challenging than it is today, with rising operational respo

February 22, 2017

Sick of video call technology that make participants look like they're in the witness protection program? Turns out youre not alone. Poor-quality video solutions can give users an unprofessional ap

February 7, 2017

Securing voice communications used to be very simple since it was generally a closed system. However, with unified communications (UC) you no longer have the walled protection offered by a dedicate

February 24, 2017
UC analyst Blair Pleasant sorts through the myriad cloud architectural models underlying UCaaS and CCaaS offerings, and explains why knowing the differences matter.
February 17, 2017
From the most basics of basics to the hidden gotchas, UC consultant Melissa Swartz helps demystify the complex world of SIP trunking.
February 7, 2017
UC&C consultant Kevin Kieller, a partner at enableUC, shares pointers for making the right architectural choices for your Skype for Business deployment.
February 1, 2017
Elka Popova, a Frost & Sullivan program director, shares a status report on the UCaaS market today and offers her perspective on what large enterprises need before committing to UC in the cloud.
January 26, 2017
Andrew Davis, co-founder of Wainhouse Research and chair of the Video track at Enterprise Connect 2017, sorts through the myriad cloud video service options and shares how to tell if your choice is en....
January 23, 2017
Sheila McGee-Smith, Contact Center/Customer Experience track chair for Enterprise Connect 2017, tells us what we need to know about the role cloud software is playing in contact centers today.