In Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., S147552 (Aug. 3, 2009), the California Supreme Court unanimously held that the mere placement of a hidden video camera in an employee’s office could constitute an invasion of privacy, even if the camera was never actually used to record the employee. Under the specific facts of the case, however, the Court ultimately found no liability because the intrusion was relatively minor, limited and justified, but California employers should be aware that the use of hidden surveillance cameras without notice or warning in “semi-private” office space is likely to produce an actionable claim for invasion of privacy in many cases.
surveillance
Privacy under the 44th President? Will the New Administration Bring a New Playbook?
Posted on
As we prepare to welcome both the 44th President and a revamped Congress to Washington, it is time to consider what privacy under the new administration will look like. Barack Obama polled strongly on the campaign trail as the candidate most likely to advance individual privacy rights, but are the pollsters a good indicator what privacy will look like under the new administration? Here are some of our thoughts about what we may see in the next four years.
Ninth Circuit Upholds NLRB Test for Unlawful Employer Surveillance of Union Activities
By Proskauer Rose on
In a unanimous panel opinion issued on January 28, 2008, the Ninth Circuit upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) newly-announced three-factor test for determining whether employer surveillance activity of potential union members is coercive and therefore in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The case, Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas et al. v. NLRB, No. 05-75515, — F.3d –, 2008 WL 216935 (January 8, 2008), involved two incidents of alleged surveillance of union activities at Aladdin Gaming, LLC, in which Aladdin officials conferred with employees in the cafeteria who had been presented with union cards.