BERGEN COUNTY — A company should not have read e-mails a former employee wrote to her lawyer from a private, password-protected web account, even though she sent them from her employer’s computer, according to a state Supreme Court ruling today that attorneys said could influence workplace privacy rules across the country.

The precedent-setting ruling upheld the sanctity of attorney-client privilege in electronic communications between a lawyer and a nursing manager at the Loving Care Agency. After the manager quit and filed a discrimination and harassment lawsuit against the Bergen County home health care company in 2008, Loving Care retrieved the messages from the computer’s hard drive and used them in preparing its defense.

The unanimous decision by the state’s highest court will have broader implications in workplaces, which increasingly rely on e-mail and the internet, according to litigators on both sides of the case.

Though disappointed, the state’s highest court did not rule in Loving Care’s favor, the company’s attorney and former Supreme Court Justice Peter Verniero said the decision will be helpful to companies and employers in the future.

"The court has now clarified an area of law, and any time you have a court clarifying an area of law, it's a positive development,’’ Verniero said. He noted no top court in any other state has yet taken up the issue.

Previous coverage:

• N.J. Supreme Court rules employer violated woman's privacy by reading e-mails

• N.J. Supreme Court hears arguments on the privacy of personal e-mails on work computers

The state’s high court found the company’s policy regarding e-mail use to be vague and noted it said "occasional personal use is permitted."

"The policy does not address personal accounts at all,’’ the decision said. "The policy does not warn employees that the contents of such e-mails are stored on a hard drive and can be forensically retrieved.’’

Verniero predicted: "This case will be read by lawyers not only in New Jersey but potentially throughout the United States.’’

An attorney who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Loving Care also praised the court for giving companies some sorely needed guidance. Marvin Goldstein, who represented the Employers Association of New Jersey, said he expects companies will use the decision to rewrite policy manuals on e-mail usage.

"The court has recognized the very legitimate and real concerns with regards to privacy. This gives some guidance to employers in terms of how explicit (e-mail) policies need to be,’’ Goldstein said.

The ruling stems from a harassment and discrimination lawsuit Marina Stengart of Bergen County filed three years ago against Loving Care of Ridgefield Park. Stengart, then the executive director of nursing, sent her attorney eight e-mails from her company-loaned laptop about her issues with her superiors. Stengart used her Yahoo e-mail account.

"Under all of the circumstances, we find that Stengart could reasonably expect that e-mails she exchanged with her attorney on her personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail account, accessed on a company laptop, would remain private,’’ Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote in the decision, which upholds an appeals court’s ruling last year.

"Stengart plainly took steps to protect the privacy of those e-mails and shield them from her employer,’’ Rabner continued. "She used a personal, password protected e-mail account instead of her company e-mail address and did not save the account’s password on her computer.’’

Peter Frazza, Stengart’s attorney, said the ruling sets a new boundary for employers who believe they may have a right to all e-mails simply because they own the computer.

"Big Brother is always there, but employees have got to be comforted by the ruling, knowing they are protected,’’ he said.