Virginia Lawyers Weekly

An employer wins summary judgment against an employee who was fired for violating company policy by downloading confidential information into a laptop that was stolen from a vehicle in a hotel parking lot, a Harrisonburg U.S. District Court rules.

At defendant insurance company, plaintiff identified, contacted and provided services for existing and potential new insurance customers. The company provided plaintiff with a laptop and a docking station that connected the laptop to company network files. Because plaintiff frequently worked outside the office, he synchronized information on his laptop with information on employer’s network. Plaintiff downloaded information covering an eight-year period, including sensitive information of existing and former company clients.

On April 30, 2008, plaintiff left his laptop computer unattended overnight in his vehicle while it was parked in a hotel parking lot.

The computer was stolen. The company informed those affected of the theft and offered them a credit-monitoring service, incurring costs of over $24,000. The company terminated plaintiff’s employment on May 31, 2008. According to his termination letter, plaintiff was terminated for cause because he had downloaded confidential information to a laptop and failed to “properly secure” it, a violation of the BB&T Corporate Information Security Policy that plaintiff could not cure. Plaintiff received his vested compensation and 30 days’ pay.

The court finds that plaintiff’s actions violated the plain language of his employment agreement: by leaving a laptop containing confidential information unattended overnight in a vehicle parked in a hotel parking lot, plaintiff failed to protect the company’s proprietary information, therefore violating its written policies, such as the company’s code of ethics. The court rejects plaintiff’s contention that he was entitled to 30 days within which to cure his violation because it is self-evident that his violation was incurable. The company had cause to terminate plaintiff under the plain language of his employment agreement, and the court grants summary judgment for the company.

Wallinger v. BB&T Ins. Servs. Inc. (Wilson, J.) No. 5:08cv00109, June 17, 2009; USDC at Harrisonburg, Va. VLW 009-3-340, 6 pp.

Close this Window Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Print RSS Feed Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments

Connotea del.icio.us Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Feed Me Links Friendsite folkd.com

Furl Google Hugg Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo linkedin LinksMarker Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace

MyWeb Netvouz Newsvine oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Rojo Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot

Sphere Sphinn Spurl Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

More »