At least 30 women who claimed they were secretly videotaped while using a restroom in an office building may pursue invasion-of-privacy claims, even if their images were not captured, a New Jersey appeals court ruled.

The case involves dozens of women out of the more than 60 who claimed that they were taped in an office building restroom. A three-judge Appellate Division panel, in a published ruling on March 23, said their claims should not have been dismissed, even though they were not apparently caught on video.

A trial judge had dismissed their claims since there was no video footage of them in the restroom.

“[W]e reject the notion that the plaintiffs—in alleging an invasion of privacy in an office building restroom—could only claim the presence of a hidden recording device by demonstrating their images were actually captured,” said Appellate Division Judge Clarkson Fisher Jr. Judges Thomas Sumners and Scott Moynihan joined in the ruling.

A janitor in the office building, Teodore Martinez, allegedly installed a video camera in the women's room, and a subsequent police investigation in 2009 found about eight hours of videotape, according to the decision.

Out of more than 60 plaintiffs, there was no video footage of 32 plaintiffs recovered, and their claims against the owners and operators of the building were dismissed since, the trial judge said, there was no evidence to show their privacy was violated.

Fisher said there was no reason for the plaintiffs, whose images were not found by the police during the investigation should have their claims dismissed.

“[W]e start with the unremarkable conclusion that a surreptitious placement of a recording device in a restroom constitutes an invasion of a user's solitude or seclusion that a reasonable person would find highly offensive,” Fisher said.

The defendants and the motion judge, Fisher said, reached the “truly remarkable conclusion” that victims could only pursue claims if their images were actually discovered during the police investigation.

This tort, he said, was a clandestine intrusion.

“An injury logically results from the mere learning of an intrusion notwithstanding the lack of actual recordings,” he said.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Franklin Solomon, who heads a firm in Cherry Hill, did not return a telephone call.

The building's owner and operator were represented by William Buckley of Schenck, Price, Smith & King. Through a public relations company, Buckley said his clients were disappointed with the ruling and are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court.