Skip to main content

Smile, You're on Camera! Employers Can Use Hidden Cameras to Monitor Suspected Work Place Misconduct


Chadwell v. Brewer - US District Court for the Western District of Virginia


Facts:  Kelly Chadwell worked as a special education teacher in Lee County, Virginia from 2003 until his termination last year.  For the last two years of his employment, Chadwell worked at Jonesville Middle School.  At the school, he had a secluded office at the end of a dead end hallway.  Chadwell shared the office with a teacher's aide, although the aide barely worked in the office.  The principal of the school suspected Chadwell was drinking on the job and got approval from the superintendent and counsel for the school district to place a video camera in Chadwell's office.  A video camera was put inside a stuffed animal and Chadwell was observed on one occasion drinking a beer at his desk.  Chadwell was confronted about the drinking and was given the choice to sign a last chance agreement (which included, in part, that Chadwell take part in alcohol rehabilitation) or be terminated.  When Chadwell failed to complete the treatment program, he was fired. 

Chadwell sued ten individuals, including the county and alleged violations of his constitutional rights and the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").  Chadwell alleged that the individuals violated his 4th Amendment rights by placing a hidden camera in his office.  A motion to dismiss was subsequently filed by the defendants on the grounds that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. 

Holding:  The Court granted the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.  For Chadwell to prevail upon his 4th Amendment claim, the Court was required to balance the invasion of an "employee's legitimate expectations of privacy and the government's need for supervision, control, and the efficient operation of the workplace."  In essence, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts show the official's conduct violated a constitutional right and the right violated was clearly established when the violation occurred.

In this case, the Court held that Chadwell had a "tempered" expectation of privacy, given his shared office, the nature of the school environment, and the location of his office.  The Court further held that the use of the video camera was reasonable as the suspicion that Chadwell was drinking on the job gave reasonable grounds that the video camera would produce evidence of this misconduct.  

Judgment:  As a result of a qualified immunity, the Court held that Chadwell could not proceed on his claims as to the individuals.  Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Takeaway:  Employees, notice something different about your office decor when you are in your office?  Beware of recently placed cameras...  I kid, I kid.  In all seriousness, when an employer has reason to believe there is work place misconduct, especially something as severe as employee drinking at a school, I do not think courts will find it unreasonable for an employer to use surveillance equipment on a limited scale to investigate.  

As for employers, this ruling is not a green light to break out the night vision goggles and infrared cameras.  Think it through first; qualified immunity is not a get out of jail free card to do as you please.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Conrad

Date:  October 1, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/CONRAD/chadwellbreweropor.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more