Employees successfully sue company for in-office surveillance

Oct 31, 2006 12:02 PM

           

Therefore, Hernandez and Lopez didn't need to prove that the private information was disclosed or published. In addition, the employer failed to provide any proof that they were never viewed or recorded by the surveillance system or provide the specific dates on which the camera was "active."

The court concluded that the mere placement of the surveillance equipment on the shelf in the employees' office invaded their privacy. It allowed the employers -- or anyone with access to the storage room -- to "activate" the surveillance system at any time during the day without the employees' knowledge, which at least presented the possibility of unwanted access to private data about them.

The court agreed with Hernandez and Lopez. While they didn't enjoy complete and absolute privacy in their office, the court said it was reasonable for them to expect that images of them in their closed office wouldn't be transmitted to another portion of the building.

Lastly, Hillsides argued that even if Hernandez and Lopez had a minimum expectation of privacy, it was overcome by the employer's need to catch the person believed to be accessing pornographic Web sites at night. After all, that person could be a danger to the children they were hired to protect. The employer consistently argued that the Web sites were "immoral," "illicit," and "pornographic" and potentially threatened the children's well-being and that the surveillance was therefore justified. The employer, however, failed to provide evidence about the logs of the Web addresses, how frequently the sites were accessed, the sites' titles, or any description of them.

According to the Perkins Coie LLP, the law firm associated with the suit, if you use video surveillance on your employees, here are a few things you should consider. An employee can sue under four basic privacy interests:

* intrusion upon seclusion (or solitude) or private affairs;

* public disclosure of embarrassing private facts; (*) publicity that places the individual in a false light in the public eye; and

* appropriation of the individual's name or likeness for the employer's advantage.

This case involved the first point -- the right to be secure from intrusion. Hernandez and Lopez didn't need to prove that their private information had been disclosed to a third party. They needed to prove only that their privacy had been invaded in an offensive manner without their consent. The intrusion itself made the employer liable, even though no one has seen the video.

Instead of trying to capture employees in the act of violating a company policy, consider telling them that they're being monitored, and allow them to police themselves or stop engaging in the inappropriate behavior.

Remember that an intrusion claim covers unconsented physical intrusions as well as unwarranted sensory intrusions, such as eavesdropping, wiretapping, and visual and photographic spying.

This article first appeared in The California Employment Law Letter. Reprinted with permission. For information, call 1-800-274-6774.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2008 Penton Media Inc.

SUBSCRIBE

Select an Issue September 1, 2008 August 1, 2008 July 1, 2008 School Security IP Security Supplement June 1, 2008 May 1, 2008 April 1, 2008 March 1, 2008 February 1, 2008 January 1, 2008 December 1, 2007 November 1, 2007 October 1, 2007 September 1, 2007 August 1, 2007 July 1, 2007 June 1, 2007 IP Security Supplement May 1, 2007 April 1, 2007 March 1, 2007 February 1, 2007 January 1, 2007 School Security December 1, 2006 November 1, 2006 October 1, 2006 September 1, 2006 August 1, 2006 July 1, 2006 June 1, 2006 May 1, 2006 April 1, 2006 March 1, 2006 February 1, 2006 January 1, 2006 December 1, 2005 November 1, 2005 October 1, 2005 September 1, 2005 August 1, 2005 July 1, 2005 June 1, 2005 May 1, 2005 April 1, 2005 March 1, 2005 February 1, 2005 January 1, 2005 December 1, 2004 November 1, 2004 October 1, 2004 September 1, 2004 August 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 June 1, 2004 May 1, 2004 April 1, 2004 March 1, 2004 February 1, 2004 January 1, 2004 December 1, 2003 November 1, 2003 October 1, 2003 September 1, 2003 August 1, 2003 July 1, 2003 June 1, 2003 May 1, 2003 April 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 February 1, 2003 January 1, 2003 December 1, 2002 November 1, 2002 October 1, 2002 September 1, 2002 August 1, 2002 July 1, 2002 June 1, 2002 May 1, 2002 April 1, 2002 March 1, 2002 February 1, 2002 January 1, 2002 December 1, 2001 November 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 September 1, 2001 August 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 June 1, 2001 May 1, 2001 April 1, 2001 March 1, 2001 February 1, 2001 January 1, 2001 December 1, 2000 November 1, 2000 October 1, 2000 September 1, 2000 August 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 June 1, 2000 May 1, 2000 April 1, 2000 March 1, 2000 February 1, 2000 January 1, 2000 December 1, 1999 November 1, 1999 October 1, 1999 September 1, 1999 August 1, 1999 July 1, 1999 June 1, 1999 May 1, 1999 April 1, 1999 March 1, 1999 February 1, 1999 January 1, 1999 December 1, 1998 November 1, 1998 October 1, 1998 September 1, 1998 August 1, 1998 July 1, 1998 June 1, 1998 May 1, 1998 April 1, 1998 March 1, 1998 February 1, 1998 January 1, 1998 December 1, 1997 November 1, 1997 October 1, 1997 September 1, 1997 August 1, 1997 July 1, 1997 June 1, 1997 May 1, 1997 April 1, 1997 March 1, 1997 February 1, 1997 January 1, 1997

This month in Access Control

• Targeting The Customer
• Electronic Pedigrees
• One Hero Among Many
• Who? What? When? Where? Why?
• More from September's issue