join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More
Search Workipedia:  
« Go Back

Privacy Rights in Texas Workplaces

Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace

Electronic monitoring in the workplace is still an area of developing law.  It is clear that an employer cannot use bugging devices and phone wiretaps to discourage or monitor union activity.  It is also clear that no one, including employers, can intercept “wire, oral, or electronic communication.”  But, what is “intercept”?  What does that mean?  For example, several cases have found that retrieving telephone messages dos not constitute an interception of the transmission.

The most important consideration is the extent to which employers have let employees know they may be monitored.  If employees know they are being monitored, then that will reduce expectations of privacy.  A frequent issue is use of work email.  If the employer allows use of work email for personal use, the employer cannot later, for example, prohibit use of work email for union activity.  Generally, the extent to which employers can invade an employee’s personal email will depend on the extent to which the employee has used work email servers to develop or send the personal email and the extent to which the personal email is password protected.

Texas does recognize the tort of invasion of privacy.  But, there may be expectations of privacy.  For example, if an employer provides lockers to employees, but requires them to provide their own locks, then the employee does have an expectation of privacy in her locker.  If the employer searches that locker with the employee’s permission, then the employer has violated the employee’s right to privacy.

Lawyer Login: Workipedia • EL Match

Auto-login Show name as online

Forgot your password?I Want To Participate!

Workipedia Navigation

Our Editors:

Most Active Contributors:

How To Contribute


  • Page Views: 0
  • Logged in Attorneys:
  • Total guests:

Ogletree Deakins | California | The Opportunities and Obligations of Venture Capital and Private Equity in the #MeToo Environment (February 01, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | Glimmers of Hope? Pair of Recent PAGA Cases Provide Rare Procedural Victories for California Employers (January 31, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | California | California’s Salary History Ban: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (January 23, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | The ICEman Cometh? Recent War of Words Puts California Employers in the Crosshairs of National Immigration Debate (January 22, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | DLSE Publishes Voluntary Template for Required Employer AB 450 Notice (February 11, 2018)

Jackson Lewis P.C. | California | Trial Court Properly Denied Attorneys’ Fees To Plaintiff Who Proved His Termination Was Substantially Motivated By His Disabilities, But Was Not The Prevailing Party At Trial (January 21, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | California | Cal/OSHA Approves Long-Awaited Housekeeper Injury Prevention Regulations (January 24, 2018)

Fisher Phillips | California | Cal/OSHA Approves Hotel Housekeeping Injury Standard – Likely to Go Into Effect Later This Year (January 21, 2018)

Ogletree Deakins | California | As Marijuana Shops Thrive, California Employers Revisit Drug Policies (January 18, 2018)

Jackson Lewis P.C. | California | California Labor Department Releases Form for Employers Responding to Immigration Agency Inspection (February 12, 2018)