Ethical Conduct. Richard Fraser was an "exclusive career insurance agent" under a contract with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co Fraser leased computer hardware and software from Nationwide for his business. During a dispute between Nationwide and the

Question

Nationwide Insurance Independent Contractors Association, an organization representing Fraser and other exclusive career agents, Fraser prepared a letter to Nationwide's competitors asking whether they were interested in acquiring the represented agents' policyholders. Nationwide obtained a copy of the letter and searched its electronic file server for e-mail indicating that the letter had been sent. It found a stored e-mail that Fraser had sent to a co-worker indicating that the letter had been sent to at least one competitor. The e-mail was retrieved from the co-worker's file of already received and discarded messages stored on the server. When Nationwide canceled its contract with Fraser, he filed a suit in a federal district court against the firm, alleging, among other things, violations of various federal laws that prohibit the interception of electronic communications during transmission. In whose favor should the court rule, and why? Did Nationwide act ethically in retrieving the e-mail? Explain.

Answer 1

Ethical conduct
The court concluded that the federal laws in question protect only electronic communications in the course of transmission, and granted a summary judgment in favor of Nationwide. Here, of course, the e-mail had already been sent and was in storage in Nationwide's computers. "[R]etrieval of a message from post-transmission storage is not covered" by the federal laws in question. Those laws provide protection "only for messages while they are in the course of transmission. The facts of this case are that Nationwide retrieved Fraser's e-mail from storage after the e-mail had already been sent and received by the recipient. Nationwide acquired Fraser's e-mail from post-transmission storage. Therefore, Nationwide's conduct is not prohibited under" federal law. As for the ethics of Nationwide's retrieval of Fraser's e-mail from Nationwide's file server, the court acknowledged that it "may in fact be ethically ‘questionable' as [an internal board that reviewed Nationwide's cancellation of Fraser's contract] indicated in its report. But it is not legally actionable under" federal law. Why might it be unethical? It could be interpreted as "unfair" or as an invasion of privacy, somewhat like searching through someone's trash. It could be seen as a violation of a duty to "employees," even though Fraser was technically an independent contractor. Fraser appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the lower court's judgment on these points and remanded for consideration of other questions. On remand, the court again ruled in Nationwide's favor.