Privacy Issues in the Workplace
The Court concluded that Hillsides was not liable for an invasion of privacy. This case was somewhat unique because Hillsides had an acute interest in preventing individuals from viewing pornography in light of the organization’s goal to provide a wholesome environment for the abused children in its care. The Court pointed out that employers should generally not use such video surveillance in the workplace without providing “adequate notice to persons within camera ranges that their actions may be viewed and taped.” While the Court’s decision does not necessarily mean that employers must provide details of video surveillance methods used in the workplace, an employee should be placed on express notice that such methods may be used. Unlike other notice provisions that are often contained in an Employee Handbook, there is a strong inference from this decision that employers should provide a separate notice and acknowledgment form to employees that video surveillance may be used in the workplace. Employers should require that employees review and sign the 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. 485 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. 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
Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2021 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 155
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog