Employer Monitoring and Surveillance of Employees in the Work-From-Home Setting
Improvements in technology have advanced a broad range of methods to monitor employees' whereabouts and activities. Reliance on technology in our personal and professional lives makes monitoring activity relatively easy.
March 13, 2023 at 10:30 AM
7 minute read
Since early 2020, more employees are working from home than ever before. While increases to the remote workforce were driven primarily by pandemic-related mitigation measures, many organizations have seen a significant number of employees choose to remain working from home even after businesses and organization have embraced a return to the in-person work model. The necessity to work remotely for some time allowed both employers and employees to recognize the benefits and challenges of a remote workforce. To be successful in this new paradigm, employers search for ways to stay connected with employees to ensure professional growth and productivity. Similarly, employees strive to achieve a work-life balance and safeguard personal privacy while working from home. These oft-competing goals require a delicate balance and careful consideration of the impact of monitoring employee performance and productivity while maintaining organizational trust and protecting employee privacy.
How Employees Are Monitored
Improvements in technology have advanced a broad range of methods to monitor employees' whereabouts and activities. Reliance on technology in our personal and professional lives makes monitoring activity relatively easy. There is an abundance of software applications and monitoring tools available to track employee activity in a variety of ways. Some common methods employers use to track employee activity include:
- Cellular phones/telephone tapping: Employer-issued cellular phones may be equipped with tracking applications or supervision settings that enable employers to access device activity and location. In addition to ascertaining the location of the device, access may include email, text messages, contacts, photos and location settings. These applications may also restrict access to certain functions, downloads or sites that may be prohibited by company policy.
- Video/webcam surveillance: Employer-issued laptops, tablets, or other workstation devices may be equipped with webcams that can be activated and deactivated remotely by employers to monitor employee activity.
- Computer monitoring: Other forms of computer monitoring include keystroke monitoring, application use, internet and social media activity, accessing stored files, and email monitoring.
- GPS/location tracking: Employers may track activity of company owned vehicles through GPS or other location or vehicle monitoring platforms.
Why Employers Monitor Employees
The primary reason for monitoring employees is productivity. Without the direct supervision that exists in the traditional work environment, employers need a mechanism to evaluate how employees are spending their time. Remote monitoring can provide an employer with a snapshot of employee activity to ensure time is spent efficiently.
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
© 2025 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 AllArbitrators Under Fire for Allegedly Forcing Workers to 'Stay or Pay' Employers
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Settlement Allows Spouses of U.S. Citizens to Reopen Removal Proceedings
- 2CFPB Resolves Flurry of Enforcement Actions in Biden's Final Week
- 3Judge Orders SoCal Edison to Preserve Evidence Relating to Los Angeles Wildfires
- 4Legal Community Luminaries Honored at New York State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting
- 5The Week in Data Jan. 21: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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