Privacy Issues in the Workplace

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. 486 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 487 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.” 488 Richardson-Tunnell v. School Insurance Program for Employees (SIPE) 489 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 surreptitiously attend the employee’s wedding to videotape her. The investigator misrepresented himself as an invited guest and videotaped the employee at her wedding and during her honeymoon. The employee filed suit against the investigator, the District, and workers’ compensation insurer alleging, among other things, violations of her constitutional rights to privacy and of Civil Code section 1708.8. The Court of Appeal held that under Government Code section 821.6, public employees are granted immunity for instituting or prosecuting judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of their employment, even if their conduct is

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2021 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 156