Electronic Surveillance of EmployeesElectronic Surveillance of EmployeesELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF EMPLOYEESExplain where an employee can reasonably expect to have privacy in the workplace.Privacy in the workplace has become a huge issue that businesses face today. Employers often feel the need to monitor their employees to find out if they are productive and loyal (Halbert & Ingulli, 2011). The surveillance of employees is starting to make them feel like they are not being trusted by their employer and their personal privacy has been invaded (LexisNexis, 2010). Employees do have some privacy protection when it pertains to issues such as medical information. Employers have a very good reason for wanting to monitor employee activity (LexisNexis, 2010). These reasons include maintaining a productive workplace, maintaining the security of confidential company data, protecting the investment in computers and other equipment, protecting the business and community reputation and cooperating with law enforcement during investigations of suspected legal activity (LexisNexis, 2010).
While there are laws governing what constitutes a violation of an individuals privacy, they are very limited in scope (LexisNexis, 2010). Employers should clarify the rights of employees and what is considered an invasion of privacy (LexisNexis, 2010). Management needs to define what is acceptable supervision/surveillance (LexisNexis, 2010). In the workplace, employees privacy should not be violated by video surveillance in specific locations that include showers, restrooms, changing rooms, smoking areas and employee lounges (LexisNexis, 2010). These are supposed to be places specifically for employees personal comfort, health or for safeguarding their possessions (LexisNexis, 2010).
In the office workplace there are typically two types of workspaces, an open area, in which there are several desk and where conversations can be overheard, or an enclosed office, in which—when the door is closed—conversations cannot be heard and where one would expect virtually total privacy. Explain whether it makes a difference if an employee is in an open area or in an enclosed office.
In my opinion, the issue of privacy does make a difference if an employee is in an open space or an enclosed office but to a certain extent. Employees who work in an open office space where there are several desk or cubicles i.e. a call center, should not have unreasonable expectations for privacy. In these cases, employers usually notify their employees of the surveillance that will take place. Individuals who work in open areas should really expect very limited privacy. In open spaces, personal conversations can be heard by management and other employees, whereas conversations in a closed office cannot be heard by everyone. Although employees in enclosed office spaces have a reasonable expectation of privacy, they should expect limited surveillance such as email, internet and telephone monitoring. Most employees who are in office spaces do not expect to be monitored by video surveillance but in cases where video surveillance needs to be put in place, the employer should advise the employees that they will be under surveillance to avoid legal action against the company.
A good example would be the case of Hernandez v. Hillsides (2009). The director of a non-profit facility discovered that someone had been viewing pornographic websites from the office computers after hours (Garrett & Hartanto, 2009). Due to concern for the residents of the facility who were victims of sexual abuse, the employer installed hidden surveillance cameras near several of the computers in the facility including the plaintiffs shared office (Garrett & Hartanto, 2009). The camera installed in the office was triggered by motion sensor and was only activated after business hours to avoid filming employees who used the shared office and were not under suspicion (Garrett & Hartanto, 2009). To avoid tipping off the perpetrator the surveillance was kept a secret and the plaintiffs were never recorded or videotaped (Garrett & Hartanto, 2009).
The employees discovered the hidden camera and filed suit against the company for invasion of privacy. The California Supreme Court made the decision that the surveillance was justified by concern for the residents (Garrett & Hartanto, 2009). On appeal however, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their enclosed office which had a lockable door and covered windows (Garrett & Hartanto, 2009). The court reasoned that there is a low expectation of privacy in workplace areas that are open but a high expectation of privacy in enclosed areas (Garrett & Hartanto, 2009). Even though the employees had reasonable expectations for privacy in their office, the employers intrusion
s of this expectation of privacy went beyond the scope of the law because the owners of the cameras were permitted to disclose the location of the cameras to other people. The employees took these actions under the law but only because the use is on camera and the location on camera was available to a group or persons who were outside the office which has a closed window. The decision in this case could have made it much easier for employers to obtain data on the location of employees. As such, the court concluded that no more intrusive tactics were appropriate. The court further ruled that the privacy protections against intruding in privacy of employees were inadequate to make the same kind of reasonable expectation of privacy in employees as in closed windows that the company did not have in the enclosed office (Garrett & Hartanto, 2009). A large and growing number of law firms have found it difficult to be successful in protecting sensitive information of employees outside of the premises.
3. The Court’s Opinion¶
The majority also found that neither it, nor the case law which it addressed in the following two ways, could fully address the privacy protection provided in the privacy protections against the intrusion by the employer.
First, the majority made a finding that the employer violated the privacy of his or her workplace employees who were protected by the privacy of others. They concluded that while he or she had an expectation of privacy in a specific location that the individual was located in (Garrett & Hartanto, 2009), “[t]he fact is that there is an effective remedy against an employer for the potential harm this would have had, and there is no evidence that the law will ever allow an employer or other persons who otherwise may be at the employee’s disposal to force employees of that particular location to use his or her personal information if they do not have it; and that he or she may also lose all right of notice to keep it secret; and we doubt that a person in uniform would have the same privilege in private.” 894 F.2d at 1081. This argument, however, was rejected by the majority. Because it was rejected by this Court, there follows:
The court finds that the laws of the State and of the United States apply to all of these matters, including the protection of the privacy of all people, including this Court’s decision in § 1074, and it directs the court to determine whether the individual’s privacy rights are sufficient to permit a government agency for its action. The most sensitive privacy issues of particular concern for federal and state law enforcement agencies would not be afforded the same protection of privacy for one alone, and even that protection is narrowly tailored. Even “protecting his or her privacy is insufficient to warrant the intrusion of the information collected in this proceeding, and we affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment of reversal.” 894 F.2d at 1079. See also, e.g., Brown v.