Privacy Issues in the Workplace

separate acknowledgment form to indicate that they are on notice of the potential for video surveillance in the workplace

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff’s Association v. Sacramento County et al. In Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff’s Association v. Sacramento County et al. , the court held that deputy sheriffs working in a jail environment have diminished privacy expectations because of the nature of their employment. 482 In that case, prison officials were investigating the apparent theft of inmates’ cash from the office. Based on those circumstances, the court found that the deputies did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against being videotaped by hidden cameras in that office. Therefore, warrantless, video-only surveillance did not constitute unlawful search and seizure, invasion of privacy, or tortious intrusion into the deputies’ privacy. Trujillo v. City of Ontario In Trujillo v. City of Ontario , the United States District Court for the Central District of California found that an employer violated police officers’ federal and state rights to privacy by conducting videotape surveillance of a locker room in order to investigate theft of a flashlight. The conduct in question took place before the enactment of California Labor Code section 435, which expressly prohibits videotaping of employee restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas. The Trujillo case balances the need to investigate theft against employee privacy interests, and provides a detailed evaluation of the elements by which to analyze public employee invasion of privacy claims. 483 Trujillo can be read as supporting a right to monetary damages for violation of the California constitutional right to privacy. However, subsequent to Trujillo , the district court for the Eastern District of California ruled in Blanco v. County of Kings 484 that Trujillo assumed, without deciding, that money damages are available for a California constitutional right to privacy claim. The district court for the Eastern District of California held that “in the absence of affirmative authority that clearly establishes a right to monetary damages under the California constitutional right to privacy, . . ., [it] declines to permit a cause of action for damages under the California Constitutional right to privacy.” 485 Richardson-Tunnell v. School Insurance Program for Employees (SIPE) 486 A public agency and its employees are immune from liability for conducting video surveillance as part of judicial and administrative proceedings, such as a worker’s compensation case. In Richardson-Tunnell v. School Insurance Program for Employees (SIPE), the Second District Court of Appeal held that a public entity is immune from liability for its covert videotaping of wedding and honeymoon of employee who was off work due to an alleged employment related injury. The employee injured her back at work and filed a worker’s compensation claim in June 2003. During her disability leave, she got married. The District and its workers’ compensation insurer hired an investigator to

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2019 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 148