Richard Fraser, an at-will independent insurance agent for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, was terminated by Nationwide and the parties disagree on the reason for Fraser’s termination. Fraser argues that Nationwide terminated him because he filed complaints regarding Nationwide’s allegedly illegal conduct, for criticizing Nationwide to the Nationwide Insurance Independent Contractors Association, and for attempting to obtain the passage of legislation in Pennsylvania to ensure that independent insurance agents could be terminated only for “just cause.” Nationwide argues, however, that it terminated Fraser because he was disloyal. Nationwide points out that Fraser drafted a letter to two competitors saying that policyholders were not happy with Nationwide and asking whether the competitors would be interested in acquiring them. (Fraser claims that the letters were drafted only to get Nationwide’s attention and were not sent.)

When Nationwide learned about these letters, it claims that it became concerned that Fraser might also be revealing company secrets to its competitors. It therefore searched its main file server—on which all of Fraser’s email was lodged—for any email to or from Fraser that showed similar improper behavior. Nationwide’s general counsel testified that the email search confirmed Fraser’s disloyalty. Therefore, on the basis of the two letters and the email search, Nationwide terminated Fraser’s employment agreement. The search of his email gives rise to Fraser’s claim for damages under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986. Do you believe the employer was justified in monitoring the employee’s email and then terminating him? What ethical arguments do you believe either side could use in this case?