New England Biz Law Update
A cellphone search is playing a central role in a Pennsylvania steelworker’s retaliation case.
In September, a federal appeals court held that a reasonable jury could determine that Samuel Grossi & Sons Inc. was looking for an excuse to fire Joseph Canada when it searched his text messages.
Canada filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2019 and subsequently filed a complaint in district court. He alleged the company interfered with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, preventing him from accessing forms and harassing him when he took leave. Canada, who is Black, also alleged racial discrimination. He was fired a few months later.
Canada says his employer broke into his locker and searched his personal phone while he was on vacation. Grossi & Sons claimed they cut the padlock off Canada’s locker in an effort to move it.
An HR representative took the phone — allegedly to determine if it was an employer-issued device — guessed the password and searched it. When that search suggested Canada had solicited sex workers during work hours, they fired him for violating the company’s employee conduct policy.
Canada denied the allegations and, in his amended suit, alleged his firing was retaliatory. In 2020, a district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that no reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant’s reason for terminating the employee was pretextual.
On appeal, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the employer’s motivation for searching Canada’s phone could be relevant to pretext. The court held that a “convincing mosaic” of evidence could convince a reasonable jury that Canada was a victim of unlawful retaliation.
Further, the court pointed to the company’s employee conduct policy, which only allowed searches if they had a reasonable suspicion an employee was engaging in misconduct. Though the defendant had a legitimate reason for moving the plaintiff’s locker, it did not have one for searching the locker or the cellphone.
While the employer alleged that it searched Canada’s phone to determine whether it was company property, the court described that argument as “weak,” claiming the “breadth of the search alone” undermined plausibility.
