More than 15 years after the California Supreme Court decided Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 272, it remains a foundational case on employee privacy rights. While the employer prevailed, the case clarified where the legal boundaries lie—and why employers should tread carefully when it comes to surveillance.

Here are five (plus one) updated takeaways for California employers navigating privacy in the workplace, along with a refresher on the underlying facts.

Case Background: What Happened in Hernandez v. Hillsides?

Hillsides, Inc., a nonprofit residential facility in Pasadena serving abused and neglected children, discovered that someone had been accessing pornographic websites late at night from a computer located in the shared daytime office of two clerical employees, Abigail Hernandez and Maria-Jose Lopez. The employer, deeply concerned about exposure to inappropriate material given its mission to protect vulnerable children, sought to identify the perpetrator.

After an initial attempt to place a camera in a computer lab proved too broad due to foot traffic, the facility’s director, installed a hidden video camera inside the plaintiffs’ office without notifying them. The camera, concealed among books and toys, was capable of recording video remotely when triggered by motion, but was only activated three times, all after hours and never while the employees were present.

Hernandez and Lopez eventually discovered the camera (a blinking red light gave it away), and although no footage of them existed, they sued for invasion of privacy.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hillsides, but the Court of Appeal reinstated the privacy claim. Ultimately, the California Supreme Court reversed, siding with the employer—but not without underscoring the delicate balance between employer interests and employee rights.

1. Privacy Expectations Exist—Even in Shared Workspaces

Despite the office being shared and accessible to other staff, the Court acknowledged that Hernandez and Lopez had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The office had a door that could be closed and locked, window blinds, and limited foot traffic—factors that contributed to the Court finding a protected “zone of privacy.”

Tip: If the physical environment gives employees the ability to shield themselves from view, that often creates a reasonable expectation of privacy—even if others can enter.

2. Surveillance Must Be Narrow, Targeted, and Justified

While Hillsides installed the camera without notice, several facts helped its defense:

• The camera was only aimed at one workstation (Lopez’s),
• It was activated only three times for limited periods,
• No images of plaintiffs were ever recorded, and
• The employer had a legitimate concern—protecting children from exposure to sexual content by stopping a potential staff abuser.

Tip: Surveillance should be a last resort, with a clearly documented purpose and minimal impact on employee privacy.

3. You Can Have a Policy—But It Must Be Specific

Hillsides had a policy stating that employees had no expectation of privacy in computer or email use, but it did not mention physical surveillance or video monitoring. The Court found this policy insufficient to notify employees about the risk of visual monitoring.

Tip: Surveillance of people (e.g., via camera or microphone) requires specific policy language and preferably signed acknowledgments.

4. Intent Matters—But It Doesn’t Excuse Intrusion

While the employer never intended to record Hernandez or Lopez—and in fact took steps to ensure they weren’t captured—intent alone didn’t eliminate the privacy concern. Still, the Court ultimately found that the limited scope, time, and purpose of the intrusion made it not “highly offensive” under California law.

Tip: Always combine legitimate intent with a reasonable, proportionate, and transparent execution plan.

5. You May Win the Case—But Still Lose Trust

The discovery of a hidden camera—even if legally defensible—can deeply damage morale and trust. Hernandez and Lopez were so disturbed they sued, despite no actual footage of them being captured.

Tip: Build a culture where privacy is respected, and where employees understand the business reasons for any monitoring in place.

6. BONUS: Audio Surveillance is a Legal Minefield in California

California is a two-party consent state (Penal Code § 632). Recording any confidential conversation—in person or by phone—without all parties’ consent is illegal, and this includes audio features on video surveillance systems.

Hernandez and Lopez were particularly alarmed when they saw a red blinking light and found the device warm to the touch. Though the employer claimed the device didn’t record audio and plaintiffs were shown footage with no sound, California law would have treated any secret audio recording as a more serious offense.

Tip:

• Don’t use audio-enabled video surveillance unless you’ve provided clear notice and obtained consent.
• Include specific audio surveillance disclosures in your employee handbook.
• Post visible signage where recording occurs.
• Avoid installing hidden microphones or using cameras that passively record sound in any space where employees talk privately.

Final Thoughts

The Hernandez case remains a benchmark for understanding the boundaries of workplace surveillance in California. It teaches that a well-intentioned policy can still lead to legal exposure if not executed with care—and that privacy isn’t just a legal issue, but a cultural one.

If you’re reviewing or updating your surveillance or privacy policies, especially with emerging tools like smart cameras or AI monitoring, now is the time to revisit your approach with legal counsel., feel free to reach out if we can help you align your approach with current California law.