Privacy rights and protections in the workplace

¶ … Privacy do we have in the Workplace

Why do we have Privacy in the Workplace?

In this paper, we are going to be looking at how much privacy employees are entitled to the workplace. This will be accomplished by focusing on: both sides of the issue and making specific recommendations. Together, these different elements will highlight how firms can effectively address these issues over the long-term.

Over the last several years, the issue of privacy in the workplace has been increasingly brought to the forefront. This is because there have been transformations in technology and the way tools are used to monitor the behavior of employees. A good example of this can be seen by looking no further than the issue of video surveillance cameras. On the surface, this is supposed to provide increased accountability (which it is doing). However, there have been situations where these devices were placed in areas such as: locker rooms, showers and rest rooms. This is problematic, as this is violating an employee's right to privacy. ("Through the Key Hole," 1998)

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court said, "The right most valued by the American people was 'the right to be left alone.' Private businesses, particularly those whose employees are not unionized, are not limited by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which address only state action." ("Through the Key Hole," 1998) This is showing how a number of firms can effectively engaging in activities that will violate their right to privacy. As a result, the needs of businesses will outweigh any kind of potential privacy concerns. To fully understand why there is a need for privacy in the workplace requires focusing on both sides of the issue. Together, these different elements will highlight how much privacy employees are permitted to have during the course of working.

Position

Obviously, employees are provided with a certain amount of privacy at all times in the workplace. This is because there are certain areas where they are forbidden from invading their privacy. However, recently the courts have been providing mixed rulings on these issues. In some cases, several states have determined that this is a violation of the Constitution. While at other times; these standards are much more severe, with some state courts ruling that employers can monitor their staff members' activities. This is provided that they do not see or hear these actions.

As a result, most courts are following the Iowa standard for invasion of privacy. This is based upon clear guidelines provided by the Iowa Supreme Court on this issue. The most notable include:

Intentionally intruding in areas where a person has right to expect a certain amount of privacy.

The act in question must be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

These ideas are showing how employees are entitled to a certain amount of privacy in areas such as: the bathroom, locker rooms, showers and dressing rooms. Yet, there are other activities that firms can become involved in, which are not a violation of the Constitution. This is illustrating how there are specific actions that are legal under the law. (Flotte, 2012)

However, these rulings are becoming more focused with the Supreme Court providing guidance in these areas. In Ontario v. Quon, they found the employers can be able to read an employee's text message on their device without violating the Fourth Amendment. What happened is the City of Ontario, California was sued when they informed everyone that they will treat all text messages the same way as emails. Under their policy, they actively monitored the activities of staff members on regular basis through reading these messages. (Colb, 2010)

The problem is that Quon was exceeding the character limit resulting in higher fees for the city. To addresses these issues administrators were considering raising the character limit for all employees. At which point, they received a copy of Quon's transcripts. What they determined, is that most of the message were of a personal nature and some contained sexually explicit content. Subsequently, Quon was disciplined for violating the city's code of conduct. Quon claimed that these messages were private in nature and this violated his right against illegal searches and seizures of personal papers (under the Fourth Amendment). (Colb, 2010)

In another case (O'Conner v. Ortega), the Supreme Court found that employers can actively monitor the activities of employees (without having to obtain consent or a warrant). As a result, the majority of the justices found that, "The workplace context makes the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable for employers." This is illustrating how businesses are allowed to avoid some of the basic constitutional requirements based upon their needs to quickly understand what is happening. When this occurs, they will be able to legally monitor the activities of employees. (Colb, 2010)

Commenting for the majority was Justice Kennedy who said, "The Court must proceed with care when considering the whole concept of privacy expectations in communications made on electronic equipment owned by a government employer. The judiciary risks error by elaborating too fully on the Fourth Amendment implications of emerging technology before its role in society has become clear. Prudence counsels caution before the facts in the instant case are used to establish far-reaching premises that define the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communication devices." This is illustrating how employers are allowed to monitor the activities of employees without obtaining consent or having probable cause. (Colb, 2010)

Yet, this also an area of delicate balance, as technology and other factors means that new issues will arise in the future. Therefore, the Iowa Supreme Court standard is establishing the best guidelines. This means that employees are provided with a certain amount of privacy in areas such as: the bathroom, locker rooms, showers and dressing rooms. For both parties, there has to be some kind of clear violation. (Colb, 2010)

As a result, areas that are covered as part of business to include: emails, telephone conversations, text messages and anything inside the employee's desk can be actively monitored. While at the same time, there must be some kind of protections in place to avoid obvious abuses (during times when the employee is entitled to a certain amount of privacy). This means that all employers must be focused on maintaining some kind of balance. Whereas employees, need to understand that they will not be able to receive the same kinds of protections as they do in their homes. (Colb, 2010)

Summary and Recommendations

These court cases are showing how employers have greater amounts of flexibility when addressing issues surrounding employee privacy. As they do not have to: obtain any kind of warrant or consent from the individual to monitor their actions. Yet, they must also have a certain degree of accountability and logic for what they are doing.

This means that all employers should follow the standards from the Iowa Supreme Court when it comes to their policies and procedures. These include:

Intentionally intruding in areas where a person has right to expect a certain amount of privacy.