Deal v. Spears
1992 WL 347093, 980 F.2d 1153 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's secret recording of an employee's personal telephone conversations is not exempt from liability under Title III's consent or business extension exceptions, as general warnings about potential monitoring do not constitute consent, and listening to the entirety of personal calls exceeds the scope of the ordinary course of business.
Facts:
- Newell and Juanita Spears owned the White Oak Package Store and lived in an adjacent mobile home, with a single telephone line and an extension connecting both locations.
- In April 1990, the store was burglarized and $16,000 was stolen; the Spearses suspected their employee, Sibbie Deal, was involved.
- The Spearses had previously warned Deal to reduce her excessive personal phone calls and told her they might resort to monitoring calls.
- To investigate the theft, Newell Spears installed a device on the extension phone that automatically and secretly recorded all calls made or received on the line.
- From June 27 to August 13, 1990, the device recorded twenty-two hours of conversations, including numerous personal and sexually provocative calls between Deal and her lover, Calvin Lucas.
- Newell Spears listened to all twenty-two hours of the tapes, discovering that Deal sold a keg of beer at cost against store policy but learning nothing about the burglary.
- On August 13, 1990, Newell Spears played a short segment of an incriminating tape for Deal and then fired her.
- Juanita Spears discussed the general nature of the taped conversations, including the affair, with Deal's husband and Lucas's wife.
Procedural Posture:
- Sibbie Deal and Calvin Lucas sued Newell and Juanita Spears in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, alleging violations of Title III.
- Following a bench trial, the District Court found the Spearses liable for unlawful interception and disclosure.
- The District Court awarded the plaintiffs $40,000 in statutory damages and attorney's fees but denied their request for punitive damages.
- The Spearses, as appellants, appealed the liability finding to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- Deal and Lucas, as cross-appellants, appealed the court's denial of punitive damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's secret, continuous recording and monitoring of an employee's personal telephone conversations fall under the consent exception or the business extension exception to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act when the employer suspects the employee of theft and has previously warned her about excessive personal calls?
Opinions:
Majority - Bowman, Circuit Judge.
No, the employer's recording does not fall under the statutory exceptions to Title III. The Spearses' interception and disclosure of the telephone calls were unlawful because neither the consent exception nor the business extension exception applies to their actions. First, Deal did not consent to the interception. A general warning that calls 'might' be monitored is insufficient to imply consent, and knowledge of the mere capability of monitoring is not consent. The Spearses' intent to secretly catch Deal in an admission contradicts any claim that they believed she had consented. Second, the business extension exception is inapplicable. The court held that the Radio Shack recorder, not the telephone extension, was the intercepting device and did not qualify as exempt equipment. More importantly, even if the equipment were exempt, the interception was not in the 'ordinary course of business.' While the Spearses had a legitimate reason to begin monitoring, they were required to stop listening once they determined a call was personal. By recording and listening to twenty-two hours of conversations in their entirety, including highly personal ones, the Spearses' intrusion far exceeded the scope of what is permissible for a business purpose. Finally, Juanita Spears's disclosure of the 'substance, purport, or meaning' of the calls to the plaintiffs' spouses constituted an illegal disclosure under the statute.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and narrows the application of the 'business extension' and 'implied consent' exceptions under the federal Wiretap Act. It establishes a crucial limit on an employer's ability to monitor employee phone calls, holding that even a legitimate business justification, such as investigating theft, does not permit unlimited surveillance. The ruling emphasizes that the scope of monitoring must be minimized, requiring employers to cease listening once a call is identified as personal. This decision reinforces employee privacy rights in the workplace and serves as a precedent against wholesale, surreptitious recording of employee communications.
