There Are Times Hidden Cameras Can Record Employee Behavior—But Not Always
A lawsuit alleging that hidden cameras captured hospital patients undergoing sensitive procedures is a reminder that the use of hidden cameras to monitor employees suspected of improper behavior is generally legal if notification of the possibility of such conduct is provided.
April 10, 2019 at 01:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Under the right circumstances, the use of hidden cameras to monitor employees suspected of improper conduct can be an effective—and legal—means of catching workplace wrongdoers, legal experts said. But the alleged use by a San Diego-area hospital likely was not under the right circumstances, they agreed.
A recent lawsuit alleges that Sharp Grossmont Hospital secretly recorded, between July 2012 and June 2013, 1,800 patients via hidden cameras inside three labor and delivery operating rooms at the women's health center. The recordings, which in some cases captured patients' faces, included footage of Caesarean births, hysterectomies, dilatation and curettage following miscarriages, and other procedures, the suit states.
In a statement, Sharp HealthCare president and chief executive officer Chris Howard said that motion-activated cameras were placed in each of the operating rooms to determine how anesthesia drugs were going missing from carts in the rooms.
“Although the cameras were intended to record only individuals in front of the anesthesia carts, others, including patients and medical personnel in the operating rooms, were at times visible to the cameras and recorded without sound,” Howard wrote, adding that determining the cause of the missing drugs through interviews and other investigative methods was unsuccessful and that this method identified the individual removing the drug.
Regardless, the incident raises serious privacy concerns for both patients and employees, labor and employment and privacy lawyers told Corporate Counsel.
“This should never be OK,” plaintiffs attorney Allison Goddard said in an interview. “There are a lot of different ways to investigate whether drugs were going missing.”
Art Silbergeld, a labor and employment partner at Thompson Coburn in Los Angeles, agreed, noting that the use of recording equipment in operating rooms should be limited to medical education purposes only, and in those instances the camera lens should be zoomed into the incision and procedure site so that patients' faces are not shown.
“There are better ways to determine whether an employee is stealing drugs,” said Silbergeld, adding that these methods include maintaining accurate counts of the number of drugs that enter and exit an operating room, along with detailed logs of all the people present in the room, as well as inspecting employees' personal property, including, for example, lockers, jackets and briefcases, per a company policy stating that employers may engage in such conduct.
Such notification generally would allow employers to videotape employees' workplaces, said Diana Maier of employment and privacy law firm Maier Law Group. Although that notice can be provided via the company policy, employers also may consider using a separate signoff form or sending emails when there is an update regarding the use of cameras as a monitoring device.
Employers also will want, she added, “to get the least information you need for the purposes that you need it for,” noting that, in the California hospital case, this would mean recording operating room activity only before or after the procedure, since the person taking the drugs arguably would not do so when the patient is in the room.
“Whenever you're collecting information, you want to make sure you aren't overbroad,” Maier said.
Stephen Breidenbach, an associate at Long Island, New York-based Moritt Hock & Hamroff and former cybersecurity professional, said in addition to narrowly restricting the camera angle so that it doesn't capture excess information, there are other considerations when employers opt to video record employees. For example, if the information is stored somewhere, encryption or other measures should be taken to ensure that only those who need to see the footage are able to.
Employers also should be aware of the limits of consent, he added, noting video recordings that also contain audio footage may present additional privacy issues.
“Regardless of the fact that you're collecting this information for a purpose, there are still privacy laws,” Breidenbach said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 2'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 3Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 4These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 5'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250