Arbitrator, in a wrongful discharge appeal, concludes that employers have a management right to know who is on a worksite at any time, including the retrieval of electronic data from a card swipe entry authorization system. Mich. Educ. Assn. and United Staff Org., AAA Case #54-390-01224-05, 24 LA (BNA) 1322 (Daniel, 2007).
     A partially paralyzed employee was not terminated because of her disability. She was observed on a security camera making obscene gestures with her middle finger and covering up an on-premises security camera. Oates v. Chattanooga Pub. Co., 205 S.W.3d 418, 2006 Tenn. App. Lexis 190, 17 AD Cases (BNA) 1702; appeal denied, 2006 Tenn. Lexis 865. [N/R]
     NLRB finds that an employer could erect no trespassing signs giving notice that all activities were being monitored by video camera. Signs acknowledging the existence of video surveillance did not restrain, coerce, or interfere with the employee's rights to organize. Consolidated Biscuit and AFL-CIO, #8-CA-33402, 346 NLRB No. 101 (NLRB 2006). {N/R}
     Arbitrator sustains the termination of an employee who had asked for FMLA leave to care for his sick wife and was videotaped going off on a hunting trip. The taping occurred outdoors, negating any privacy issues. Interstate Brands Corp. and Int. Assn. of Machinists L-1363, 121 LA (BNA) 1580, FMCS #05 (1228)/0317-8 (Skulina, 2005). [2006 FP May]
     Management's placement of a concealed video-only camera in an unlocked computer room, which was shared by two schoolteachers, was not a privacy violation. Crist v. Alpine Union Sch. Dist., #D044775, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 8699 (2005). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court holds that an employer had a duty to bargain with the union over the installation of covert videocameras on the worksite, even if located in an elevator utility room. Reinstatement claims for terminated employees still pending resolution. Brewers L-6 v. NLRB, #04-1278, 414 F.3d 36, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 13292, 177 LRRM (BNA) 2705 (D.C. Cir.). [2005 FP Oct]
     Oregon's Supreme Court holds that a public employer can secretly install a device that monitors and reports the location of a government vehicle used by a public employee. In this case, a firefighter ultimately was convicted of First Degree Arson. Appellant did not have a protected privacy interest in keeping her location and work-related activities concealed from her employer. "... neither the attachment of the transmitter to the truck nor the subsequent monitoring of that transmitter's location invaded a privacy interest of defendant ..." State v. Meredith, SC#S50173, 337 Ore. 299, 96 P.3d 342, 2004 Ore. Lexis 530 (2004). [2004 FP Nov]
     Federal appeals court vacates an injunction against a police dept. for conducting a surveillance of a captain and his lawyer, after the captain filed a discrimination complaint. Plaintiff failed to prove the dept. intended to continue the conduct. Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148 (3rd Cir. 1997). See also Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 92 S.Ct. 2318 and Phil. Mtg. of Relig. Soc. of Friends v. Tate, 519 F.2d 1335 (1975). [1998 FP 151]
     Rhode Island legislature considers bill to make it illegal for an employer to keep an employee under surveillance while that employee is involved in labor relations activity. H.B. 8214; see ASIS Security Management, Oct. 1994. {N/R}
     Correction officer's "consent to search form" signed at time of hiring did not authorize her superiors to conduct a clandestine surveillance of the facility's restrooms. Speer v. Ohio Dept. of Reh. & Corr., 89 Ohio App.3d 276, 624 N.E.2d 251 (1993). [1994 FP 167-8]
     Prolonged, overt IAD surveillance of an innocent police officer did not violate her 4th, and 14th Amendment rights. Carrillo v. Ward, 770 F.Supp. 815 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). [1992 FP 5]
     Jury finds that K.C. police internal affairs investigators trespassed to get evidence that another officer was in violation of residency requirements. Nominal damages awarded. [Larry] Riebesell v. [Thomas] Walker [and John Cornell], Jackson Co., MO, Cir. Ct. (1990).
     Investigators who drove pass the plaintiff's home and followed her car engaged in lawful acts in public areas. Suit for intrusive surveillance dismissed. Figured v. Paralegal Technical Serv., 555 A.2d 663 (N.J.App. 1989); app. dismissed, 583 A.2d 350 (N.J. 1990). {N/R}
     Employer's surveillance of employee's home and checking of vehicle licenses from a public location was not an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Fayard v. Guardsmark Inc., 5 IER Cases (BNA) 516 (E.D. La. 1989).
     Investigators who sneaked around house and peeped in windows, eavesdropped on conversations and followed the plaintiff were civilly liable for an overly intrusive surveillance. Pinkerton N.D.A. v. Stevens, 132 S.E.2d 19 (Ga.App. 1963). {N/R}
     Cal. Supreme Ct. finds surveillance unreasonable, where investigators enticed the plaintiff to visit Disneyland and filmed her engaging in activities inconsistent with her alleged spinal injuries. She suffered a nervous and physical breakdown, requiring hospitalization, when she learned of the ruse. Unruh v. Truck Insur. Exch., 498 P.2d 1063 (Cal. 1972). {N/R}
     Filming of a worker's comp. claimant while he was outdoors, did not violate his privacy rights. McLain v. Boise Cascade, 271 Or. 549, 533 P.2d 343 (1975). {N/R}
     Illinois appellate court upholds right of investigators to persuade the plaintiff to engage in physical activities (in a swimming pool) that he had claimed he could not do because of his injuries. "The pictures speak for themselves." McGoorty v. Benhart, 305 Ill.App. 458, 27 N.E.2d 289 (1940). {N/R}
     Article: Use and Abuse of Surveillance Videos, 85 (1) Ill. Bar. J. 22-27 (Jan. 1997); {Our File Ref. #5638}. {N/R}
     Videotaping and C.C.T.V.: See topic "Telephone Monitoring, Video & Audio Taping" ; also see cases under "Disciplinary Searches" and "Privacy Rights."