Focus your discussion response on the issue of employee expectations of privacy.
ID: 397287 • 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
Does the fact that the employees were never actually recorded let the employer off the liability hook?
No. The employees who work in closed office, have an expectation of privacy. As a result, there is a duty from the employer to provide privacy to employees. In the case Hernandez v. Hillsides Inc, the court had identified that the defendant had violated the privacy expectation of the employees. It is only in the second test (if the violation was justified or not) did the court decide that the defendant was not guilty.
However, this sets the precedence for the way employers are expected to treat employees at workplace. Even though the intention of using the surveillance cameras were after the office hours, this was a violation of privacy of employees. Just because the employees did not get recorded or the intention was not to record the employees, does not let the employer off the liability of providing privacy to employees.
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?
Yes. The court conducted the test for Hernandez v. Hillside Inc in two stages. First it identified if there has been a violation of privacy. In this regard the court determined that there has been a violation of privacy. However, the second step was to determine if the violation was justified.
Here, the nature of the business was to provide protection to abused children. Naturally, this meant that the employer had to be on high alert to monitor and evaluate the conduct of the employees in their organization. This meant that the purpose of the organization and the reason of the surveillance superseded the privacy need for the employees and the court found Hillside not guilty.