MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
What if the place where she had done this did have a door and was more private, would the ruling be different? Should it be? Where does it stop, are they allowed to put cameras in a bathroom where there is certainly a reasonable expectation of privacy, could it get to that point? Does privacy in the workplace even exist anymore?
By Michael Levenson, Boston Globe Staff | April 14, 2006
A receptionist who sued Salem State College after learning that there was a security camera hidden in her office, videotaping as she changed clothes, had no ''objectively reasonable expectation of privacy" in her workplace, the state's high court said yesterday.
The ruling was blasted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, which said the Supreme Judicial Court had ''opened the door to secret video surveillance in the workplace."
''It is certainly a significant setback for privacy in the workplace," John Reinstein, legal director for the ACLU, said in a statement.
Jeff Feuer, a lawyer at Goldstein & Feuer who aided in the case, said, ''Throughout our history, the courts have interpreted the right to privacy to protect people, not places. This decision flies in the face of that principle."
The case began in the summer of 1995, when the receptionist, Gail Nelson, was recovering from a bad sunburn. Several times a day, she left her desk at the college's Small Business Development Center and went to the back of the office, where she unbuttoned her blouse and applied a prescription ointment. Several times, she also changed her clothes, taking advantage of moments when no one else was on the floor and no visitors were expected.
Unknown to Nelson, her boss, Frederick Young, had installed a security camera in the office, which was set to record 24 hours a day. He did so after learning that a former client at the center, who was under investigation for criminal activity, had previously gained unauthorized access to the office after closing hours. When Nelson found out about the camera, she sued Young, alleging he had violated her right to privacy.
Yesterday, the justices ruled unanimously in favor of the college. In a nine-page decision, the court said it reviewed the design of Nelson's workplace and the access that employees had to it, ruling that, ''The office was public."
The place where Nelson changed, behind two partitions, lacked a door and had an opening in it about the width of a desk, wrote Justice Roderick L. Ireland. It was located near the stairs, which employees and visitors used to get to the bathroom. ''Anyone in the center" could enter Nelson's changing place ''at any time" and ''without prior notice," Ireland wrote.
''Despite all of the plaintiff's efforts to discreetly conduct acts of a very personal and private nature in the office, in this case there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy," the court said.
By Michael Levenson, Boston Globe Staff | April 14, 2006
A receptionist who sued Salem State College after learning that there was a security camera hidden in her office, videotaping as she changed clothes, had no ''objectively reasonable expectation of privacy" in her workplace, the state's high court said yesterday.
The ruling was blasted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, which said the Supreme Judicial Court had ''opened the door to secret video surveillance in the workplace."
''It is certainly a significant setback for privacy in the workplace," John Reinstein, legal director for the ACLU, said in a statement.
Jeff Feuer, a lawyer at Goldstein & Feuer who aided in the case, said, ''Throughout our history, the courts have interpreted the right to privacy to protect people, not places. This decision flies in the face of that principle."
The case began in the summer of 1995, when the receptionist, Gail Nelson, was recovering from a bad sunburn. Several times a day, she left her desk at the college's Small Business Development Center and went to the back of the office, where she unbuttoned her blouse and applied a prescription ointment. Several times, she also changed her clothes, taking advantage of moments when no one else was on the floor and no visitors were expected.
Unknown to Nelson, her boss, Frederick Young, had installed a security camera in the office, which was set to record 24 hours a day. He did so after learning that a former client at the center, who was under investigation for criminal activity, had previously gained unauthorized access to the office after closing hours. When Nelson found out about the camera, she sued Young, alleging he had violated her right to privacy.
Yesterday, the justices ruled unanimously in favor of the college. In a nine-page decision, the court said it reviewed the design of Nelson's workplace and the access that employees had to it, ruling that, ''The office was public."
The place where Nelson changed, behind two partitions, lacked a door and had an opening in it about the width of a desk, wrote Justice Roderick L. Ireland. It was located near the stairs, which employees and visitors used to get to the bathroom. ''Anyone in the center" could enter Nelson's changing place ''at any time" and ''without prior notice," Ireland wrote.
''Despite all of the plaintiff's efforts to discreetly conduct acts of a very personal and private nature in the office, in this case there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy," the court said.
