Focus your discussion response on the issue of employee expectations of privacy.
ID: 394768 • Letter: F
Question
Focus your discussion response on the issue of employee expectations of privacy.
Scenario #9: Two employees sued an employer, who had placed a surveillance video camera in an office that employees shared, for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The employer, a facility for abused children, defended on the grounds that (1) the plaintiffs were not recorded or viewed by the surveillance equipment defendants placed in their office; and (2) all employees of the facility had a diminished expectation of privacy that was overcome by defendants’ need to protect the children residing at their facility. Does the fact that the employees were never actually recorded let the employer off the liability hook? Did the nature of the employer’s business diminish the employees’ expectation of privacy to the point where their privacy interest could not support an invasion of privacy lawsuit? [See Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 780 (Cal. App. 2006)
Explanation / Answer
FROM READING THE FOLLOWING CASE WE GET TO KNOW THAT HITCHCOCK INSTALLED THE MOTION CAMERA IN THE OFFICE DUE TO A INDECENT MOVIE THREAT(SOMEONE WAS WATCHING IT) SO HE INSTALLED A MOTION DETECTOR FOR THAT , NOT FOR THE CUASE OF VIEWING PLAINTIFFS PLUS THE CAMERA DIDNT EVEN RECORD ANYONE DOING ANTHING INDECENT SO I BELEIVE IT WAS A SIMPLE CASE OF MISUNDERSTANDING , SINCE HITCHCOCK COULDNT TRUST ANYONE FROM THE OFFICE I BELIEVE HE WAS NOT WRONG
THE SECOND STATEMENT IS SOMEWHAT TRUE SINCE THE PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT PRODUCE ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT HITCHCOCK WAS ACTULLY RECORDING THEM AND PLACED THE CAMERA BECAUSE OF THEM , THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO HOLD THE CASE , HITCHCOCK HAD A DIFFERENT MOTIVE AND SO DID THE PLAINTIFFS BUT YES PRIVACY CONCERN WAS NOT SUPPORTED IN AN INVASION OF PRIVACY LAWSUIT
NOTE PLEASE DO RATE THE ANSWER