Location

• If employers set up surveillance cameras around a checkout counter, a warehouse loading dock or a parking lot, that's usually legal; employees have no reasonable expectation or privacy there. If the camera is set up in an employee's office -- particularly if it has a door with a lock, rather than an open cubicle -- it falls into a gray area. The California Employee Rights Blog suggests using a rule of thumb; if the location is one where an employee would expect to change clothes without being seen, a court might frown on videotaping them.
  
  

Notification

• Employers are usually safer if they let employees know that they are, or could be, monitored. If the employment handbook states that the employer can place employees under surveillance any time and anywhere, the company could argue that employees have no reason to expect privacy anywhere. Even then, the Labor Code protection would still keep cameras out of locker rooms. It also would be illegal to tape an employee's confidential conversation with his attorney, even on the premises.
  
  

Hernandez v. Hillsides

• One 2009 case gave the California Supreme Court the opportunity to establish some broad principles on workplace surveillance. Management at Hillsides, a private residential facility for abused children, discovered someone logging onto one of the office computers at night to download porn. Hillsides installed a camera in the office and turned it on at night to catch the culprit. When the office's daytime occupants learned about this, they sued for invasion of privacy, even though they had not been taped or monitored.
  
  

Court Decisions

• The trial court in Hernandez ruled for Hillsides on the grounds the company had never taped the plaintiffs. The appellate court disagreed, stating that Hillsides had made an unjustified intrusion into the plaintiffs' privacy. The Supreme Court agreed the company intruded; the plaintiffs could reasonably expect privacy in the office, and Hillsides had never warned them they might be taped. However, the court said, Hillsides had a legitimate reason for surveillance and as the camera was off during the day, the intrusion was minimal. The court found for Hillsides.