The employer, citing its mission to protect abused children and to protect itself from any legal liability, installed a video camera in Plaintiffs’ office to identify the perpetrator. Because the websites were only being access at night, the video camera did not record any of Plaintiffs’ activities during the day, and was only turned on at night. The perpetrator was not caught.  But Plaintiffs’ discovered the video camera in the office, and filed this lawsuit for violation of their privacy rights.

The California Supreme Court noted that to succeed on their privacy claims, Plaintiffs would need to prove that:

1. The plaintiff must possess a legally protected privacy interest,
2. The plaintiff’s expectations of privacy must be reasonable, and
3. The plaintiff must show that the intrusion is so serious in nature, scope, and actual or potential impact as to constitute an egregious breach of social norms.

The Court noted that Plaintiffs were able to establish violation of the first two elements in this case– that the employer intentionally intruded into the Plaintiffs’ office in which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Offensiveness of the employer’s action

However, the Court held that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof for the third element. First, the Court held that the degree and setting of the intrusion into Plaintiffs’ privacy was not very high. The Court noted that the “place, time, and scope” of defendant’s surveillance was not highly offensive. Second, the Court looked at the employers motive and justifications for conducting the surveillance – which had no element of being improper in this case. Given nature Hillsides’ business of helping abused children, it was taking proper action to prevent any possible harm to them. Given these factors, the Court found that the Plaintiffs could not, as a matter of law, prove that a reasonable person would find the intrusion into their privacy offensive.

Take away for employers

• Do not assume that you have the right to monitor employees during working hours. As the case establishes, employees still have reasonable expectations of privacy at work.
• Do not assume a computer monitoring policy applies to video and audio surveillance. The employer in this case tried to argue that the computer monitoring policy diminished Plaintiffs’ expectation of privacy at work, but the Court disagreed because the policy never mentioned the possibility that employees could be videotaped at work.

The case, Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. can be read here (PDF).
 

job applicants to provide their user names and login information to common social networking sites on their job applications

Just over one-year ago, I was asked by employers about what legalities were involved in Googling a job applicant, or looking at their on-line presence before making a hiring decision. It seems now, however, that once employees realized that their on-line presence is not so private, they began to restrict who could view this information on the Internet.

The city of Bozeman apparently was not happy with the increasing sophistication of people posting information on the Internet, resulting in it being shutout of viewing job applicants’ Facebook pages. So the city simply started to ask job applicants to provide their user names and passwords to social networking sites. The application provides:

Please list any and all current personal or business Web sites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.

Many people and groups, such as the ACLU, have objected to this request arguing that it violates the job applicants’ privacy rights. As a result of the criticism it received, the city said that it will likely remove the request for user names and passwords, but may still require job applicants to “friend” the city in Facebook so that the city could still see what is posted.

I think this policy goes too far. Irrespective of the legal privacy questions raised, I do not think it would be a good hiring practice for an employer. I, for one, (and I think a lot of other people) would simply refuse to provide this information. If the city disqualifies job applicants who do not provide the information (which is claims it does not do), it is limiting its potential workforce of qualified people. Employees using these technologies are computer savy and are at least motivated enough to learn and try new technology. The job applicants who most likely will not have a problem in providing this information are those who do not know how to use a computer or the Internet and do not have any social networking accounts. Are these really the best qualified employees? In today’s workforce, a working knowledge of the Internet and social networking sites is almost a necessity. Businesses are learning about these new mediums and are discovering new ways of advertising and conducting business. It would be a detriment to not have employees who at least know what technology is available and is commonly used.

I also think that this incident will begin the discussion about people’s privacy interest in this type of information. The more and more people begin to “live” on the Internet, state legislatures will probably begin to define specifically what employers can and cannot ask for from employees.

Other articles of interest I’ve written related to employee's on-line privacy in the workplace:

California Appellate Court Holds Postings On MySpace.com Are Not Private

Can An Employer Be Liable For Not Googling A Job Applicant?

Google Latitude In The Workplace

As layoffs sweep across industries, employees' personal information is winding up in the dustbin, as well. Most workers know better than to store personal files on their office computer. But employees who spend the majority of their time at the office often treat the company PC as their personal gadget, filling it with music, photos, personal contacts -- even using the computer's calendar to track a child's soccer schedule. That makes it all the more distressing when a newly laid-off worker learns that his digital belongings are company property.

The author correctly notes that what information is the employee’s as opposed to the employers is probably going to be set forth in and governed by the employer’s policies. Often times these policies will be provided to the employee when he or she first starts:

Employees worried about their job security should review the forms they signed when they were hired. They should look at the company's electronic communications policy, employee guidelines and non-compete agreements to make sure they understand everything properly. When employees sign these agreements, they should also make copies to save at home, too, Ms. Yancey says. Those that break these agreements risk being fired or sued by their employer, she adds.

It is important to note that in California, it is extremely difficult for employers to enforce non-competition agreements due to a California Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen last year. California employers can still protect company information through other means, such as establishing that the information is a trade secret, or is proprietary information.

Steps California Employers Should Take To Avoid Litigation Over Electronic Data

• California employers need to establish a clear policy that establishes that the employee does not have any privacy expectation in any data stored on company owned computers or devises.
• The policy should establish that all aspects of an employee’s use of company equipment can be monitored.
• Employers need to have the employees sign an acknowledgment of electronic data and monitoring policy.
• The employer should remind employees of the electronic data policy at least every year.
• If employers do have trade secrets, they need to maintain strict protocols to ensure that only employees with a “need to know” have access to the information and take steps to ensure that the information is protected.
• If an employee who has been laid off requests personal information from his or her computer such as family pictures, an employer’s accommodation of this request will be somewhat of a step towards minimizing the employee’s ill-will towards the company (and less likely to pursue litigation against the company).
   

First off, in California, Article I, Section I of the California Constitution guarantees citizens a right of privacy:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

This right to privacy carries over to the workplace. Furthermore, section 96(k) of the Labor Code provides that the California Labor Commissioner may assert on behalf of employees:

Claims for loss of wages as the result of demotion, suspension, or discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises.

In Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp. (2003), a court provided some guidance about the ramifications of section 96(k). Barbee was dating a subordinate at work, which violated the company’s policy and created a conflict of interest. The company gave Barbee and the employee with whom he was involved the option that one of them had to resign or to end the relationship. Barbee refused to resign, and they did not end the relationship, so the company terminated Barbee. Barbee sued, arguing that the company violated Labor Code section 96(k) in that his employer was regulating his lawful conduct during personal time. The court rejected Barbee’s argument in stating:

We conclude that Labor Code section 96, subdivision (k) does not set forth an independent public policy that provides employees with any substantive rights, but, rather, merely establishes a procedure by which the Labor Commissioner may assert, on behalf of employees, recognized constitutional rights. Therefore, in order to prevail on his wrongful termination claim, Barbee must establish that his employment was terminated because he asserted civil rights guaranteed by article I of the California Constitution. We conclude that Barbee cannot make this showing and therefore he cannot establish the first necessary element of his wrongful termination claim.

While the court held that the company’s actions in that case did not violate section 96(k), the facts were very favorable to the employer that are not applicable when dealing with privacy rights and GPS tracking.  Also and there are other arguments available to employees. For example, an employee may also argue violation of Labor Code Section 98.6 which states in part that “no person shall discharge any employee ... because the employee … engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96 ….”

Therefore, there are a few minimum steps employers should take when using tracking technology in the workplace:

1. Develop a policy about how the company will use GPS tracking in the workplace.
2. Disclose the policy in writing to the employees.
3. Pay for the device or software that is required for the tracking (requiring employees to pay for business expenses violates Labor Code section 2802).
4. Allow the employee to turn the GPS device off when not working during the day, such as during lunch breaks, on personal time, or after they have left for the day.