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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more