Posting Personal Information

[Nickerson]

Can an employer post personal information such as home address and home phone number so that this information is freely available to other employees? I am employed in Los Angeles, CA.

 

[lawrat]

I am a law school graduate currently awaiting Bar results. What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship.

No, an employer CAN NEVER post personal information so that it is freely available to other employees. Also, those employees CANNOT then try to contact said individual at their place of residence. Both the employee calling and the company can be liable for intrusion of privacy.

The only way around this is when employees within a department voluntarily leave their phone numbers (like home/cell/pager) as a way to be contacted in case of emergencies.

I know I posted mine in case of emergencies and was contacted for a reason other than that.

hope this helps.

 

[lawguy]

unless you've an unlisted phone/address, you have no privacy rights in your phone or address. so, companies may post lists of addresses and phone numbers for any legitimate business purpose (to allow employees to trade shifts, etc.) without worrying about any invasion of privacy claim.

and, co-workers can call employees at home, or write them letters, or stop by to visit, or even follow them home without invading their right to privacy.

unfortunately, by studying for the bar, some people get blinded by seeing lawsuits and claims everywhere (look! there goes a chose in action! and over there -- a tort!). get real (get experience).

the general law on employee privacy in california derives from a California Supreme Court case called Hill v. NCAA (it's now a few years old). the general rule from this case is (pay attention bar students) a "balancing test." basically, you weigh the employer's business interests in disclosing personal information against the privacy interests of the employee. So, for something as public and available as your phone or address (i.e., information with little privacy interest), almost any good reason an employer comes up with for posting the information justifies the conduct.

so, employers don't have to worry about invading privacy by posting employees' contact info; employees don't have to worry about invading privacy by calling their co-workers; lawrats don't have to worry about forming attorney-client relationships until they're really attorneys; and no one has to worry about giving advice if the advice is based on actual case and statutory authority rather than shooting from the hip with guesses and law-school-enabled feelings.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lawguy:
unless you've an unlisted phone/address, you have no privacy rights in your phone or address. so, companies may post lists of addresses and phone numbers for any legitimate business purpose (to allow employees to trade shifts, etc.) without worrying about any invasion of privacy claim.

and, co-workers can call employees at home, or write them letters, or stop by to visit, or even follow them home without invading their right to privacy.

unfortunately, by studying for the bar, some people get blinded by seeing lawsuits and claims everywhere (look! there goes a chose in action! and over there -- a tort!). get real (get experience).

the general law on employee privacy in california derives from a California Supreme Court case called Hill v. NCAA (it's now a few years old). the general rule from this case is (pay attention bar students) a "balancing test." basically, you weigh the employer's business interests in disclosing personal information against the privacy interests of the employee. So, for something as public and available as your phone or address (i.e., information with little privacy interest), almost any good reason an employer comes up with for posting the information justifies the conduct.

so, employers don't have to worry about invading privacy by posting employees' contact info; employees don't have to worry about invading privacy by calling their co-workers; lawrats don't have to worry about forming attorney-client relationships until they're really attorneys; and no one has to worry about giving advice if the advice is based on actual case and statutory authority rather than shooting from the hip with guesses and law-school-enabled feelings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My response:

Hey, Lawguy!! I see you're poking your sharp tongue around again. Can't you just disagree with someone, and keep your wittless thoughts to yourself? Your barbs do nothing for the content of a problem. You really are a self-righteous slob. Is this how you get your kicks - - by putting people down? You really are a "head case" jerk. I read "Hill" - - unlike yourself.
The Hill court reasoned that when a player (employee) "previously" agrees to abrogate their privacy rights, then an employer can utilize such private information. In the writer's instance, did you read anything that says the writer abrogated anything? No.

You read something that wasn't there. Why?

Why won't you register?

But, it's good to see you around again, you scumsucking asshole.

IAAL

------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."



[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited May 24, 2000).]

 

[lawrat]

hey lawguy guess what === i know for a fact THAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CALL EMPLOYEES AT HOME OR ANYWHERE OUTSIDE OF WORK WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION. SO let me tell YOU SOMETHING, I do not know how long you have been in practice but just because you have a license does not mean you know EVERYTHING. I am a very well respected individual in my profession and guess what -- licensed attorneys come to ME for advice......so do not flatter yourself.

I make my answers easy to understand for non attorneys and let people know that sometimes they have a case and sometimes they don't. so keep your attitude at a minimum.

 

[lawrat]

oh yeah and btw, i put disclaimers there because most people (obviously you too) do not understand the difference between talking to a law school student, graduate or licensed attorney and forming an attorney client relationship. I let them know, so no liability (fraud, misrep or anything else people come up with) can be headed my way.

 

[chalker in PA]

Here I go again. I believe I have read contradictory answers from three attorneys or soon-to-be attorneys. If anyone cares, I was constantly called at home by my employer; my address was published in a district-wide book; my phone number was unlisted, so that could not be published. If I read the above correctly, one advisor says "you" (employer?) cannot call people at home w/o permission, while another advisor says the opposite. One employee was told by the boss he could not call other employees because they felt harassed. When employee no. 1 asked boss, could he know their names, as he had many friends {he thought} on the staff, employer said, no I can't tell you their names. So employer no. 1 didn't know whom to stop calling!

By the way, why don't you all simmer down, sit back, watch reruns of Matlock, and have a nice weekend? No more screaming and cussin'! ;-)