Total Articles: 12
Email Privacy Ruling Good For Employers
Although privacy is on everyone's minds these days, there are only a handful of California court cases which set out the rules businesses must follow in protecting and honoring employee privacy. A recent ruling by the California Court of Appeals in Holmes v. Petrovich Development Company, LLC clarifies that employees do not have enforceable privacy rights when using company email systems if the employer has a technology use policy that permits employer inspection of company email.
Employee Privacy Interests Outweigh Union's Right To Communicate With Represented Employees in California
Is a California employer required to disclose an employee's home telephone number and address upon request by a union without first advising the employee of the disclosure? According to a recent California Court of Appeal opinion, County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Committee,[1] an employer may not do so unless it provides the same notice and opt-out procedures provided to putative class members in consumer class actions. The court's decision expressly found that employee privacy rights are guaranteed by the California constitution and outweigh a union's right to communicate with represented employees.
California Supreme Court Holds that ZIP Codes Constitute Personal Identification Information Under Civil Code Section 1747.08
Last week, in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 446921, — Cal. 4th — (Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) ("Pineda"), the California Supreme Court held that "a ZIP code constitutes ‘personal identification information'" as that phrase is used in California Civil Code section 1747.08 ("Section 1747.08"), and as such, "requesting and recording a [credit] cardholder's ZIP code" is prohibited by Section 1747.08 if it is requested as part of a credit card transaction.
Computer Usage Policy Trumps California Employee's Attorney-Client Privilege.
What happens when an employee e-mails her attorney from her company e-mail account about suing her employer? According to a recent California Court of Appeal opinion, Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co., LLC, [1] it is likely that the e-mail will not be protected by the attorney-client privilege and will be admissible at trial. According to the opinion, when the employer has an express policy that reduces any expectation of privacy, e-mail communications between an employee and her attorney may be equivalent to "consulting her lawyer in her employer's conference room, in a loud voice, with the door open."
STATE SUPREME COURT LOOKS AT HIDDEN CAMERAS IN THE WORKPLACE.
The California Supreme Court has sent a mixed message to employers who wish to conduct secret video surveillance in the workplace using hidden cameras. The Supreme Court approved the use of hidden cameras in certain circumstances. Here is what happened.
Cal Supreme Court Approves Workplace Video Monitoring.
Employers with good intentions of keeping the workplace safe and secure have the means at their disposal to keep tabs on employees. Gadgets once relegated to 007 films are available to monitor a worker's every move. However, as one employer recently learned in the case Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., such efforts may collide with an employee's right to privacy.
SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER EMPLOYEES.
Employers have salutary reasons to monitor employees’ work areas and employee conduct. For example, employers must attempt to prevent misconduct such as harassment before it occurs. Employers also are legally responsible to provide a safe work place. Laws and regulations have increased potential liability for workplace conduct. In the past, the work area typically was visible and tangible. Now, employees frequently interact in cyberspace, or over computer systems, rather than on an easily watched “shop floor.”
OVEREXPOSED EMPLOYEES.
First, there were blogs. Then came Web 2.0 or "social networking." Once reserved for teenagers and geeks, websites like Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn, Twitter, Yelp, and others have gained mainstream popularity. Among other things, these websites permit users to create personal areas where they keep online diaries; share intimate or mundane details about their lives; post pictures and to public bulletin boards; and "link" to online groups and friends. Businesses, celebrities, and ordinary citizens alike openly invite the public to "friend" or "follow" them and interact online.
Employment Policies Update: Employers Urged To Update Cell Phone Policies.
If you are a regular reader of this Legal Update, by now you are tired of hearing about the new cell phone law. Here it is once again: Effective July 1, 2008, Senate Bill 1613 provides that it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone, unless a hands-free device for the cell phone is used.
Employers at Risk for Telephone Monitoring Without Notice (pdf).
A California appeals court has held that an employee
fired after his supervisor had secretly monitored a
telephone conversation may sue his employer for invasion
of privacy, wrongful termination and intentional infliction
of emotional distress.
Employer's Policies Can Affect Expectation of Privacy.
Two recent California appellate decisions demonstrate how an employer may affect employees’ privacy expectations with respect to work-related activities.
Consent to Monitoring Waives Privacy in Home Computer Owned by Employer.
TBG Insurance Services Corporation v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2091 (Cal.App.2d Dist., Div. 1, 2002), in which the court that the employee waived his privacy expectation by acknowledging his employer's written policy permitting the employer to monitor the use.
