J, the cameras are in public places.
In Fazo v. Nordstrom, No. 702450 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1993), an employee filed a claim for invasion of privacy against her employer for allegedly filming activity in a locked storeroom through the use of a hidden camera. The storeroom was off of the jewelry department in which the employee worked and was used by the employees to change clothes and relieve themselves when they had insufficient time to leave the area to use the restroom.
The employer denied using a camera and claimed that the room was a functional part of the business. The jury was apparently persuaded because it ruled that the employee lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy and had no grounds for her claim.
In other cases, however, courts have found that video surveillance of employees in a public area is constitutionally permissible. In Vega-Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co., 110 F.3d 174 (1st Cir. 1997), the court addressed whether the quasi-public employer violated the Fourth Amendment by placing video cameras in the employee work area to monitor employees' work at all times. T
he court held that this type of surveillance was constitutionally permissible, and it noted that the employees worked in an open floor plan area in which a supervisor could view them at any time and that this physical work space did not give them a reasonable expectation of privacy. In Thompson v. Johnson County Community College, 930 F. Supp. 501 (D. Kan. 1996), the court determined that an employer did not violate the U.S. Constitution or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act by placing a video camera in a storeroom where security personnel kept their lockers and sometimes changed clothes.
The court noted that the storeroom was open to several different types of personnel, was not enclosed, and was not intended solely for the security officers' use. These factors combined to persuade the court that the employees did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the storeroom.
