Privacy Issues in the Workplace

E NDNOTES

1 National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson (2011) 562 U.S. 134 [131 S.Ct. 746] Whalen v. Roe (1977) 429 U.S. 589 [97 S.Ct. 869]. 2 Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479 [85 S.Ct. 1678]; Whalen v. Roe (1977) 429 U.S. 589, 599 [97 S.Ct. 869]. 3 Thorne v. City of El Segundo (9th Cir. 1983) 726 F.2d 459 see also Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) 405 U.S. 438 [92 S.Ct. 1029]; Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113 [93 S.Ct. 705] (basic matters as contraception, abortion, marriage, and family life are protected by the constitution from unwarranted government intrusion). 4 Waters v. Churchill (1994) 511 U.S. 661 [114 S.Ct. 1878]; Heffernan v. City of Paterson, N.J. (2016) 136 S. Ct. 1412. 5 Cal. Const., art. I, § 1. 6 Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834]. 7 Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 8 Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 556. 9 Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20 [81 Cal.Rptr. 360]. 10 Gov. Code, §§ 810, 815. 11 Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 899 [80 Cal.Rptr.3d 690]. 12 Forsher v. Bugliosi (1980) 26 Cal.3d 792 [163 Cal.Rptr. 628]; Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1040 [201 Cal.Rptr. 665]. 13 Porten v. University of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825 [134 Cal.Rptr. 839]. 14 Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 808 [154 Cal.Rptr.3d 275]. 15 Tecza v. University of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2013) 532 Fed.Appx. 667 (unpublished). 16 Institute of Athletic Motivation v. University of Illinois (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 1 [170 Cal.Rptr. 411]; Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (c). 17 Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (c); Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 721 18 Deaile v. General Telephone Co. of California (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 841 [115 Cal.Rptr. 582]. 19 Comeaux v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. (1990) 915 F.2d 1264; Emerson v. J. F. Shea Co. (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 579 [143 Cal.Rptr. 170]. 20 Lorenzana v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 626 [108 Cal.Rptr. 585]; Gill v. Hearst Pub. Co. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 224 [253 P.2d 441]. 21 Pettus v. Cole (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 402, 442-43 [57 Cal.Rptr.2d 46], as mod. on den. of rehg., review den. 22 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 v. City of Philadelphia (3d Cir. 1987) 812 F.2d 105, decision vacated by (3rd Cir. 1988) 859 F.2d 276. 23 Indeed, in a case discussing Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 v. City of Philadelphia (3d Cir. 1987) 812 F.2d 105, a California Court of Appeal recognized that peace officers who seek to be promoted or transferred to specialized divisions whose work is unusually sensitive or requires high integrity can be subject to polygraph examinations. Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1535 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d 23]. Presumably, the employer also has greater latitude in applicant questioning for such positions

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2021 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 185