Not Advised I Was Being Recorded In Iowa

[adamh600]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Iowa

I was recently terminated from employment and was advised that my actions had been caught on video surveillance. When the situation was brought forward and I was informed that the investigation had begun I did not deny my actions as they had been allowed since my start of employment.

The issue is not my actions. The issue is that in the area where my actions took place there is a sign on the wall that says "Audio and video recording is active when light is on." There is a small light imbedded into the wall that lights up when you turn on three switches on the wall. Myself and other employees had been advised that unless these switches are on and the light is on that the video recording is not active. I would understand the sign to be interpreted that if the light is off, recording is not taking place. If recording is taking place, then it is illegal, unless I have been informed by another means, which I was not.

In the State of Iowa, I believe that one party involved in the conversation must be aware that the recording is taking place. If this is accurate, my former employer did not follow the law and is liable for my wrongful termination.

My former employer will probably say that the work environment is such that are public areas are under surveillance coverage due to the nature of the business (casino). I understand this, but the signage says otherwise.

My actions may have been inappropriate in the eyes of my former employer and they view that they caught me in the act. They may have but were they following the law when they did so???

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Iowa

I was recently terminated from employment and was advised that my actions had been caught on video surveillance. When the situation was brought forward and I was informed that the investigation had begun I did not deny my actions as they had been allowed since my start of employment.

The issue is not my actions. The issue is that in the area where my actions took place there is a sign on the wall that says "Audio and video recording is active when light is on." There is a small light imbedded into the wall that lights up when you turn on three switches on the wall. Myself and other employees had been advised that unless these switches are on and the light is on that the video recording is not active. I would understand the sign to be interpreted that if the light is off, recording is not taking place. If recording is taking place, then it is illegal, unless I have been informed by another means, which I was not.

In the State of Iowa, I believe that one party involved in the conversation must be aware that the recording is taking place. If this is accurate, my former employer did not follow the law and is liable for my wrongful termination.

My former employer will probably say that the work environment is such that are public areas are under surveillance coverage due to the nature of the business (casino). I understand this, but the signage says otherwise.

My actions may have been inappropriate in the eyes of my former employer and they view that they caught me in the act. They may have but were they following the law when they did so???

This is not a wrongful termination.

The issue is moot, really. You're an at-will employee, barring a contract or otherwise binding agreement being present. In other words, they don't need a reason to fire you - they can fire you simply because the boss woke up feeling cranky.

 

[adamh600]

I follow you there. My biggest issue is the interpretation of the signage. If two guests of the casino were in that room and assaulted me to cause a fatality, the guests would be under the same impression that they were not being recorded, unless the light was on. If they went to court and they showed the video to prove which of the two committed the crime, what would a judge do? The casino would have had no right to have it in the first place because of the sign with no light active, correct?

Before someone eventually attacks me with "you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar", I'll make it clear: I didn't deny my actions when questioned.

 

[Proserpina]

I follow you there. My biggest issue is the interpretation of the signage. If two guests of the casino were in that room and assaulted me to cause a fatality, the guests would be under the same impression that they were not being recorded, unless the light was on. If they went to court and they showed the video to prove which of the two committed the crime, what would a judge do? The casino would have had no right to have it in the first place because of the sign with no light active, correct?

The issue isn't necessarily whether or the video was recorded legally, but whether the video would be admissible.

It's also not the visual recording that's really at issue, but the audio recording. Given that the casino owners are obviously aware of any audio recording and there would be little-to-no expectation of privacy (if the assault/act took place in the bathroom facilities that may be another matter entirely), that may be all that is required to satisfy the recording aspect.

Before someone eventually attacks me with "you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar", I'll make it clear: I didn't deny my actions when questioned.

C'est la vie!

But since you did post this in the Employment Law section, I'll reiterate - it's moot. They don't need a reason to fire you unless the previous conditions (union or other binding agreement/contract) applied.

 

[proud_parent]

It's also not the visual recording that's really at issue, but the audio recording.

Exactly.



OP, do you know for certain that video recording of you includes audio? You wrote:

... there is a sign on the wall that says "Audio and video recording is active when light is on." There is a small light imbedded into the wall that lights up when you turn on three switches on the wall. Myself and other employees had been advised that unless these switches are on and the light is on that the video recording is not active. I would understand the sign to be interpreted that if the light is off, recording is not taking place.

Maybe. But then again, one might interpret that sign to mean that BOTH audio AND video recording are active when the light is on. Did your employer made a video recording of you without any audio?

If recording is taking place, then it is illegal, unless I have been informed by another means, which I was not.

In the State of Iowa, I believe that one party involved in the conversation must be aware that the recording is taking place.

Are you sure that is true for video-only recording? What's your statutory or case law basis for your contention?

 

[sandyclaus]

Note that the statute is intended for audio taping, i.e. wiretapping protection. If the camera recorded sound when the statute may apply.

That being said, a one-party state means that ONE party to the recorded conversation must consent. Even if OP didn't consent, the OTHER party (the employer) DID. Only in a two-party/all-party state would BOTH or ALL parties to the conversation be required to consent before audio taping could legally take place.

Although ethically improper, I don't believe that the employer broke the law by recording with that indicator light being turned off. There's also the matter of whether or not one had an expectation of privacy in a public workplace.

Is there any local or state law that prohibits videotaping employees in the workplace?

 

[Proserpina]

Note that the statute is intended for audio taping, i.e. wiretapping protection. If the camera recorded sound when the statute may apply.

That being said, a one-party state means that ONE party to the recorded conversation must consent. Even if OP didn't consent, the OTHER party (the employer) DID. Only in a two-party/all-party state would BOTH or ALL parties to the conversation be required to consent before audio taping could legally take place.

Although ethically improper, I don't believe that the employer broke the law by recording with that indicator light being turned off. There's also the matter of whether or not one had an expectation of privacy in a public workplace.

Is there any local or state law that prohibits videotaping employees in the workplace?

Even if there were, I would suspect that a casino might just be exempt.