Sitton v. Print Direction, Inc.
312 Ga. App. 365
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Sitton was discharged from Print Direction, Inc. (PDI) after evidence surfaced that he was engaging in a competing business via SSA while employed by PDI.
- Sitton brokered over $150,000 in print jobs through SSA, a business started by his wife, which directly competed with PDI, and kept all profits for himself.
- Sitton used his own laptop (not PDI-provided) connected to PDI's network to perform PDI work and SSA work; PDI provided laptops but Sitton chose to use his own.
- Stanton, PDI's CEO, accessed Sitton’s computer and printed incriminating emails about Sitton’s SSA activities, which supported PDI’s termination of Sitton.
- The trial court awarded damages to PDI and Sitton appeals asserting multiple statutory, privacy, evidentiary, contract, and damages challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stanton’s viewing/printing of emails on Sitton’s computer violated OCGA 16-9-93 | Sitton argues the acts were computer theft/trespass/privacy. | Stanton acted within authority under PDFs policy. | No violation; actions not 'without authority' and not within statute. |
| Whether the intrusion on Sitton’s seclusion was unreasonable | Sitton contends intrusion by surveillance violated privacy. | Stanton’s review was reasonable for investigation of misconduct. | Not an unreasonable intrusion; actions were reasonable under the circumstances. |
| Whether the Employee Manual constitutes a contract and was properly considered | Manual creates contractual consideration and should be construed accordingly. | Argument raised too late/preserved for review; not properly preserved. | Issue waived; not properly preserved for appellate review. |
| Whether the email and Manual were admissible and properly admitted | The incriminating email was obtained in violation of OCGA 16-11-62 and should be excluded. | Email admissible; Manual had been properly admitted; no best evidence error. | Email admissible; Manual evidence was properly admitted or waived; no error to reverse. |
| Whether the trial court properly awarded damages for breach of duty of loyalty | Sitton breached loyalty by competing and diverting business via SSA. | Evidence supports breach; Sitton acted as PDFs agent with fiduciary obligation. | Damages affirmed; court's calculation within the range of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yarbray v. Southern Bell & Co., 261 Ga. 703 (Ga. 1991) (surveillance can constitute reasonable invasion of privacy in some contexts)
- Brannon v. Perryman Cemetery, 308 Ga. App. 832 (Ga. App. 2011) (appellate standards for reviewing evidence sufficiency)
- Physician Specialists in Anesthesia v. Wildmon, 238 Ga. App. 730 (Ga. App. 1999) (fiduciary duties and loyalty in employment context)
- Nilan's Alley, Inc. v. Ginsburg, 208 Ga. App. 145 (Ga. App. 1993) (employee breach of loyalty and related remedies)
- Benedict v. State Farm Bank, 309 Ga. App. 133 (Ga. App. 2011) (reasonableness of surveillance and privacy expectations)