Did cameras violate employees’ privacy?
June 17, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Security and law
When trying to catch an employee breaking the rules, is it possible to infringe on the privacy of other employees?
That’s the question at the center of this court fight:
Two women in California are suing their employer after discovering a hidden camera in an office they shared. They claim the company invaded their privacy.
The employer’s explanation:
The company discovered that someone had been viewing pornography after hours on the women’s computers, so it installed a camera in the office.
The women weren’t suspected of wrong-doing, but they also weren’t told about the camera. The company claimed it was only turned on at night and never captured the women on film. In addition, the employer argued the employees had no reason to expect privacy while at work.
A California court agreed the women’s privacy was never compromised because they were never actually filmed. But that decision was overturned on appeal when a judge ruled the possibility that the woman could be watched was enough to let the case move forward.
Now, the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear the suit. We’ll keep you posted.
Cite: Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc.
View all the Latest StoriesTags: camera, privacy, video surveillance
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:44 am
Wow, California Judges are at it again. California Judges are some of the most ignorant Judges in the world. Under this decision as much as it states this judge could find that a person that drives and also occasionally drinks could in affect drive while he is drinking and therefore be pulled over by the highway patrol for driving under the influence because of probable cause.
Employees should not expect privacy while at work; although camera images should not be made available to anyone without a company reason to view them. This same Judge is the one that would release a terrorist because he was filmed by a concealed video camera in a shopping mall carrying a bag of explosives to the site of a bomb blast.
The California Supreme Court should have refused to hear this case.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
What about camera’s that watches a showroom floor or a cashier, or the sending and receiving dock?
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Enough is enough. When we hire an employee, they are hired based on certain criteria that they must meet to be considered for the job. If we start infringing on employees personal space, forget about the interview processes. Lets just put them through a lie detector test. Some companies are just paranoid.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Based on the info in this article, it sounds like the original hearing/court found that this did NOT violate the employee’s privacy, but this was overturned by an apellate judge. If the CA Supreme Court doesn’t hear the case, then the appelate court ruling stands.
June 29th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Maria, it’s not the employees’ personal space — it’s their work area within the company offices. I agree with the company that there should be no expectation of privacy (except in the restrooms) at work.
Keith, good point — let’s hope the CA Supreme Court has more sense than the appellate court.
Joe — also a good point. Cameras are everywhere in our lives, and I believe the company had a right to watch their workspaces.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:02 am
[...] we reported earlier, a judge initially sided with the women anyway. He said that just the possibility that they [...]