Section 17 Caselaw Concerning Invasion of Privacy Claims

• Library: Employer-Employee Law 2008

An actionable intrusion into seclusion occurs when “the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Sofka v. Thal, 662 S.W.2d 502, 510 (Mo. banc 1983).

In Speer v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction,
624 N.E.2d 251, 252 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993), an employee’s supervisor “positioned himself in the ceiling of a staff restroom for over seven hours for the purpose of spying on her.” The employee worked at a corrections facility, and the supervisor was investigating allegations that the employee was “too friendly” with inmates. Speer, 624 N.E.2d at 252. The employer alleged that the employee had consented to the surveillance because she signed a consent form to be searched. Id. at 253. The court rejected that argument and found that the surveillance was not a search. Id. It was held that the employer intruded into the employee’s seclusion with the bathroom surveillance. Speer v. Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 646 N.E.2d 273, 274 (Ohio. Ct. Cl. 1994).

Another case in which an employer may have exceeded the scope of permissible surveillance was Acuff v. IBP, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 914 (C.D. Ill. 1999). The employer placed a video surveillance camera in its nurse’s office. Acuff, 77 F. Supp. 2d at 918. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to impute to the employer that it should have been aware that examinations were conducted in the office. Id. at 924. The court denied summary judgment for the employer with regard to employees who presented evidence that they were examined when the surveillance was occurring. Id. at 927–35.

But employees generally have no reasonable expectation of privacy in employer common areas. In Marrs v. Marriott Corp., 830 F. Supp. 274, 277 (D. Md. 1992), an employee alleged that his employer invaded his privacy by...