| Employers can be liable for secretly placing a | | | | his fantasy football league. The court held that the |
| video camera in an employee's office, even if the | | | | hidden camera was not unconstitutional because |
| employer does not view any of the video. An | | | | of the diminished expectation of privacy in a jail. |
| employer must control his watchful eye and use it | | | | The expectation of privacy is also low in bars and |
| in limited circumstances. | | | | cafes. However, bathrooms have a higher level of |
| A California employer, who operates a residential | | | | privacy. In California, a trucking company |
| facility for abused children, placed a camera in an | | | | employer videotaped the rest room through a |
| office to determine who was accessing | | | | mirror to detect drug use of its driver employees. |
| pornographic websites at night. The camera was | | | | This was deemed impermissible. |
| activated at all times in the office. The employer | | | | What does an employer do to prevent a lawsuit |
| told a few employees about the camera, but not | | | | for invasion of privacy as a result of improper |
| the female employees occupying the office, | | | | video or audio taping in the workplace? |
| because the employer feared that these talkative | | | | 1. There should be strict and well-reasoned |
| employees may inform the perpetrators. While | | | | controls on video and audio devices. The use of |
| the camera was activated, a female employee | | | | any audio or camera devices for surveillance |
| who occupied the office, on occasion, closed the | | | | should be limited in a workplace. Videotaping must |
| door, pulled down the shade to show her | | | | be justified on the facts and the industry and |
| coworker how she was recovering from child | | | | surveillance should be limited to a specific purpose. |
| birth. The employer was tagged with invasion of | | | | 2. The employee manual should state that |
| the employees' privacy. It did not matter if the | | | | employees have no expectation of privacy in their |
| employer viewed the videotapes or not. The fact | | | | office and that there may be video or audio |
| that the employer had access to viewing was | | | | taping at any given time. This employee manual |
| enough to invade the employees' invasion of | | | | warning is similar to the non privacy warning that |
| privacy. The employees had an expectation of | | | | employees' receive about emails and computer |
| privacy that when the door to their office was | | | | usage. If an employee needs to undress this |
| closed, images of them in the office would not be | | | | should be done in the restroom, where an |
| transmitted. | | | | employee has the highest level of privacy. Courts |
| Employer video surveillance is permissible in widely | | | | have found that videotaping in restrooms is |
| accessible areas because there are little | | | | impermissible. |
| expectations of privacy. For example, a room in a | | | | It is understandable that employers have to limit |
| janitor break room was found to be permissible | | | | their liability and need to be watchful of criminal |
| because the room was readily accessible to | | | | activity or other illegal activity. However, |
| others. Jails are another place where the | | | | employees do have privacy rights. Employers |
| expectation of privacy is low. In a Sacramento | | | | must strike a delicate balance and make |
| jail, money was missing from a jail release office. | | | | well-reasoned decisions, in light of employees' right |
| A camera was installed to focus on the safe and | | | | to privacy, before undertaking a secretive |
| the cash register area. The officer used the office | | | | watchful eye. |
| for playing cards, working on his checkbook and | | | | |