Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc.

211 P.3d 1063 (Cal. 2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps shared an office in the administrative building at Hillsides. Several people, besides Ps, had keys to their office. In 2002, D circulated an “E-Mail, Voicemail and Computer Systems Policy.” This document stated that D intended to prevent employees from using electronic communications systems in a manner that defamed, harassed, or harmed others, or that subjected the company to “significant legal exposure.” Illegal and inappropriate activity was prohibited, such as accessing sexually offensive Web sites or displaying, downloading, or distributing sexually explicit material. It warned employees that they had “no reasonable expectation of privacy in any . . . use of Company computers, network and system.” The policy advised that all data created, transmitted, downloaded, or stored on the system was D's property and that the company could “monitor and record employee activity on its computers, network . . . and e-mail systems,” including “e-mail messages, . . . files stored or transmitted, and . . . websites accessed.” It was determined that numerous pornographic Web sites had been viewed in the late-night and early-morning hours from at least two different computers. One of them sat on the desk Lopez (P) used in the office she shared with Hernandez (P). The computer could have been accessed after hours by someone other than Lopez because she did not always log off before going home at night. Given the odd hours at which such activity had occurred, D surmised that the perpetrator was a program director or other staff person who had unfettered access in the middle of the night. D decided to use video equipment to record the perpetrator in the act of using the computers at night. D told other administrators about the problem and his surveillance plan. D decided to conduct surveillance in the office that Ps shared. He did not inform them. D rarely activated the camera and motion detector in Ps' office, and never did so while they were there. Ps eventually discovered the equipment and sued. The trial court dismissed. It concluded that any privacy expectations Ps had in their joint office were “diminished,” and were “overcome by D's right to a safe environment for its children. The Appeals court reversed. According to the appellate court, Ps had a reasonable expectation to be free from this kind of intrusion in the workplace, notwithstanding evidence that they were never viewed or recorded and that they worked in a shared office to which others had access. The Court of Appeal concluded that D's conduct was highly offensive.