Privacy a Concern for Both Sides in California Labor Law

Pasadena, CATwo employees in a California office who objected to hidden surveillance in their work area sued their employer for invasion of privacy, only to lose in a recent California Supreme Court decision. The California Labor Law case may have been a victory for the employer, with the Supreme Court upholding limitations on the right to privacy. However legal opinion takes the view that each case is unique and employers need to tread carefully with regard to any instance where an employee may feel their privacy is threatened.

The basis for 'Hernandez v. Hillsides Inc.' was the discovery by a children's shelter in Pasadena that someone had been accessing online pornography sites after hours on one of the two plaintiff's computers. In an effort to identify the perpetrator, the employer had a hidden camera installed to monitor the office where the two employees toiled.

The employer did not suspect the plaintiffs, given that the women worked only daytime hours, whereas a number of security personnel with access to offices roamed the 12-building complex at all hours, including overnight when the access occurred. The employer maintained that the camera was activated only after the two plaintiffs in the lawsuit had left for the day.

However, when the two plaintiffs discovered the presence of the camera they complained to their employer, later suing Hillsides Inc. for violation of their privacy.

Hillsides Children's Center is a residential treatment facility for children age six to 18 years. When the illicit internet activity was discovered, the facility feared for the welfare of the children, many of whom came from abusive backgrounds. Hillsides immediately commenced the after-hours surveillance without informing the two plaintiffs.

In the court documents it was revealed that plaintiffs Abigail Hernandez and Maria-Jose Lopez shared an office in one of the administrative buildings and that sometimes one of the plaintiffs would change into exercise clothes in that office prior to leaving for the day. The discovery of the camera, in October 2002, was a concern for the two women. Assurances that the system was only activated at night provided little solace for the two women.

In granting summary judgment for the defendants, the California Supreme Court could not find any evidence that the two women were ever recorded, or monitored.

The judgment, filed August 3rd 2009 stated in part: "While plaintiffs' privacy interests in a shared office at work were far from absolute, (the plaintiffs) had a reasonable expectation under widely held social norms that their employer would not install video equipment capable of monitoring and recording their activities—personal and work related—behind closed doors without their knowledge or consent."

On the other hand, in the Supreme Court's view "…any actual surveillance was drastically limited in nature and scope, exempting plaintiffs from its reach. Defendants also were motivated by strong countervailing concerns."

There are various statutes in California labor law governing the right to privacy and inherent limitations that regulate the conduct of both employer and employee. Just as an employee has the right to litigate in the face of an alleged affront to personal privacy, an employer seeking to implement any measure that may intrude on an employee's privacy would be well-advised to seek a legal opinion prior to proceeding