Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc.
47 Cal. 4th 272, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274, 211 P.3d 1063 (2009) (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's use of covert video surveillance in a private office, while potentially intruding upon an employee's reasonable expectation of privacy, does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy unless the surveillance is also highly offensive to a reasonable person. The offensiveness is determined by weighing factors such as the employer's legitimate business justification, the limited nature of the surveillance, and whether the employees were actually viewed or recorded.
Facts:
- Hillsides, Inc., operated a residential facility for abused children, where Abigail Hernandez and Maria-Jose Lopez worked and shared an enclosed office.
- An unknown person began using a computer in Hernandez and Lopez's office late at night to access pornographic websites, violating company policy.
- The facility's director, John M. Hitchcock, suspected a staff member was responsible and, without notifying Hernandez or Lopez, installed a hidden camera in their office to identify the culprit.
- The camera was aimed at the computer workstation and could be remotely activated to view or record activity from a nearby storage room.
- Over a three-week period, Hitchcock activated the surveillance system on only three occasions, always after Hernandez and Lopez had left for the day, and deactivated it before they returned.
- Hernandez and Lopez were never the targets of the surveillance and were never viewed or recorded by the camera system.
- On October 25, 2002, Hernandez and Lopez discovered the hidden camera equipment in their office.
- Hitchcock later apologized, explained the purpose of the surveillance, and showed them the videotape, which only depicted an empty office and Hitchcock setting up the equipment.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Abigail Hernandez and Maria-Jose Lopez filed a tort action against defendants Hillsides, Inc., and John M. Hitchcock in the trial court.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment on the invasion-of-privacy claim, finding there were triable issues of material fact.
- The defendants, as petitioners, sought review from the Supreme Court of California, which granted the petition.
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 commit an actionable invasion of privacy by installing a hidden video camera in an employee's office to identify an unknown wrongdoer, when the employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy but are not the intended targets and are never actually viewed or recorded?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
No, an employer does not commit an actionable invasion of privacy under these circumstances because, while installing the camera was an intrusion, it was not highly offensive. A valid claim for invasion of privacy by intrusion requires two elements: (1) an intrusion into a place where the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and (2) the intrusion must be 'highly offensive' to a reasonable person. The court found that the plaintiffs did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their enclosed office, and the installation of a hidden camera capable of monitoring their activities constituted an intrusion. However, the intrusion was not highly offensive when considering all circumstances. The court reasoned that the employer's motive was a legitimate business concern—to identify a staff member accessing pornography, which posed a risk to the vulnerable children under Hillsides's care. Furthermore, the surveillance was narrowly tailored in place (aimed only at the specific computer), time (activated only three times at night), and scope, with deliberate steps taken to ensure the plaintiffs were never actually viewed or recorded. These mitigating factors prevent the intrusion from rising to the level of an egregious breach of social norms necessary to be actionable.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the two-part test for the tort of intrusion in the workplace, emphasizing that an intrusion upon a reasonable expectation of privacy is not, by itself, sufficient for liability. The decision establishes that the 'highly offensive' element requires a separate, contextual analysis that balances the employer's motives and justifications against the degree of the privacy intrusion. This provides employers with a framework for conducting targeted surveillance for legitimate business reasons, so long as the intrusion is narrowly tailored and minimizes the impact on non-targeted employees. The distinction between the potential to be viewed and the actuality of being viewed becomes a critical factor in determining whether the conduct constitutes an egregious breach of social norms.
