So the plaintiffs didn’t have any privacy rights in their office?
The court acknowledged that the office space did offer plaintiffs some level of privacy insofar as it was set up so that the blinds could be drawn and the door locked. While this was mainly to afford plaintiffs refuge from interruptions and distractions, it also reasonably allowed them a protected space to perform personal activities such as changing their clothes. The court further recognized that the remote activated video system could potentially pose an unreasonable intrusion into the plaintiffs’ legitimate privacy in that space. That said, the fact that the intrusion was limited to after hours, was done only intermittently, and was for a legitimate reason (particularly in light of the nature of Hillsides’ operations) led the court to find that any intrusion that occurred by virtue of the hidden video surveillance was not so egregious as to be actionable.
In light of this case, should companies do more to monitor their workplaces?
Monitoring workplaces for theft or unauthorized use of company equipment, such as computers and the Internet, is a critical function of any business, and is increasingly important as the use of the Internet proliferates into regular business practices. The Hillsides case teaches us that not all intrusions are inappropriate so long as they are narrowly tailored to achieve the legitimate business goal, employees are notified that surveillance or monitoring may take place, and that the nature of the intrusion does not outweigh the legitimate needs of the business (e.g., video surveillance of a dressing room will be treated differently than surveillance of a lunch room). The propriety of any monitoring is intensely factually specific, and the ramifications of an inappropriate intrusion can be profound and devastating. For that reason, it is critical that you review your systems and disclosures with counsel to minimize the risk of unlawfully invading your employees’ privacy rights.
Are there other timely employment-related rulings employers should know about?
One closely watched Supreme Court case in recent years, at least in the employment context, is the Brinker case, which considers, among other things, whether employers must ensure their employees take 30 minute meal breaks, and not simply provide the opportunity for the break. The briefing has closed on the case, oral argument will take place soon, and a decision is likely in mid 2010.
One notable occurrence is that the California Labor Commissioner, to the surprise of many, submitted an amicus brief to the effect that it does not interpret the relevant law as requiring employers to ensure that their employees take their meal breaks. Rather, the Labor Commissioner takes the position that employers need only ensure the employee is free of all duties, but that the employer is not in violation if the employee, nevertheless, voluntarily foregoes some or all of their meal breaks. This is by no means binding on the court, but is certainly a boost to the employer that the state enforcement authority views the law in such a fashion.
Peter B. Maretz is a shareholder with Stokes Roberts & Wagner ALC. He regularly advises businesses on all aspects of employment law. Reach him at [email protected] or (619) 237-0909.