Work Place Privacy

Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

Work Place Privacy

Postby Administrator » Fri Oct 03, 2014 1:15 pm

Work Place Privacy

Vega-Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Tel. Co., 110 F.3d 174; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6517 [1st Cir. 1997]
Employer had a right to place video cameras in work areas to monitor employees' work flow, but it had no authority to placement of cameras in secret or into private areas of plant.

Thompson v. Johnson County Community College,1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 5832 [10th Cir. 1997]
Where silent video surveillance was conducted of employees' locker room area which was not locked and access not restricted, the employees had no reasonable expectation of privacy to the area surrounding the lockers.

Muick v. Glenayre Elecs, 280 F.3d 741; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 1782, [7th Cir. 2002]
Employee had no right of privacy in computer that employer loaned him for use in the workplace. Employee's claim that employer violated his federal constitutional rights when it turned the computer over to government was properly dismissed.

Benoit v. Roche, 657 So.2d 574; 1995, La. App. LEXIS 1795, NUMBER 94-715 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1995)
The employees alleged that a manager at the store where they worked placed a baby monitor in the lunch room to eavesdrop on the employees' conversations. They also contended that management routinely listened in on their personal telephone calls. In reversing the summary judgment for the employer, the court held that the conduct complained of was a violation of the Louisiana Electronic Surveillance Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 15:1301 et seq., which was actionable under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 15:1312. The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the ground that the manager's conduct could not be imputed to the employer. The court noted that vicarious liability was based upon La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2320 as augmented by a four-factor analysis. The court noted that the summary judgment evidence raised issues of fact regarding most if not all of these factors, and held that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 19157 [9th Cir. 2001]
The victims alleged that their state law privacy rights were violated by the employers' installation of hidden video cameras in the restrooms located in one of their terminals. The court held that where the employers' surreptitious surveillance constituted a per se violation of established state privacy laws, the employees affected thereby could bring an action for invasion of privacy regardless of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement governing their employment.
David A. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak, LLC
416 Travis Street, Suite 1404, Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-424-1400 / Fax 221-6555
President, Bossier Little League
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association

Return to “Invasion of Privacy: State Law”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest