California Supreme Court considers suit over workplace spying
The California Supreme Court seemed unlikely Wednesday to authorize employers to spy on their workers with hidden cameras.
At the same time, some members of the state high court appeared skeptical that two women who discovered a surveillance camera in their office had suffered serious harm.
Meeting for oral arguments, the court considered a lawsuit brought by the women against their employer for installing a hidden camera in their office.
The justices’ queries and remarks suggested that they believe workers have the right to expect some privacy in their offices, but left open the question of whether the women who sued had suffered enough to win their case.
The women said they suffered emotional distress when they discovered the camera by chance after noticing a blinking red light. One woman said she changed her clothes in the room before going to the gym in the evenings. The other woman said she exposed her breasts and stomach to her colleague to show how she was losing weight after having a baby.
Hillsides Inc., the employer and operator of a residential center for abused children, said the office was put under surveillance only in the evening in hopes of learning the identity of someone who was looking at pornography on the women’s computers. The employer said the women were not suspected but were not informed of the camera because they “gossiped.” The camera never recorded a view of the women, according to the company.
A state appeals court in Los Angeles unanimously ruled that the women had a viable lawsuit. The court said employees need not show they were viewed or recorded by a hidden camera to prevail in an invasion of privacy suit.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George appeared dubious of the company’s contention that an employee could never sue for loss of privacy if the worker was not the target of the surveillance. George cited a hypothetical of a camera placed in a company bathroom because of reports that people were engaging in lewd acts there.
Under the company’s contention, employees who had nothing to do with the sexual activity could not claim privacy rights even if they were secretly videotaped, George said. But he also questioned whether employees had a right to privacy in an office during hours when they were never there.
Justice Joyce L. Kennard said the company had “a pretty big hurdle” in trying to argue that the case was not covered by a prior ruling that said employees in an office had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
But she and other justices repeatedly questioned whether the women had suffered a serious, highly offensive and unjustified intrusion. Even if the court agreed that the women had an expectation of privacy, the question would be was the intrusion “an egregious break from the social norm,” Kennard said. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said “the offensiveness seems to be de minimis” because the camera was turned on only three times and the women were never taped.
Companies have “a Catch-22 situation” if they know someone on staff is downloading pornography but don’t take any action to protect clients who could be at risk, argued Justice Marvin R. Baxter. If “something happens to a child, then of course the employer is on the hook” for a lawsuit, Baxter said.
The court met for arguments in Los Angeles and will decide Hernandez vs. Hillsides within 90 days.
--
