data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5d6a/d5d6a8179907144dc8ebad3adda52f47ab191d0b" alt=""
In general, employers may monitor their employees activities electronically without invading a legally protected privacy interest, so long as they give notice of what they are doing. For example, if the employee handbook warns employees that electronic communications on employer-provided equipment are not private, they cannot be heard to complain that the employer accessed their emails, even if they contained attorney-client communications. See Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co., LLC, 191 Cal.App.4th 1047 (2011).
Tracking off duty activity by GPS may not be so easily justified by disclosure of the surveillance. While the employer as an interest in material that passes through its communications systems, it has usually has no interest in the off duty activities of its employees. Because the extent of privacy protection depends in part on a balancing of the employee's interests against those of the employer, the lack of a legitimate interest in off duty activity strengthens the employee's privacy claim.
Arias's complaint against Internex Wire Transfer relies in part on California Penal Code section 637.7, which bars using an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person. However the definition of electronic tracking device is limited to a "device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing." That does not appear to apply to software installed on a cell phone.
No comments:
Post a Comment