Hotel Online
News for the Hospitality Executive


Losing the Expectation of Privacy bit by bit, byte by byte

By Jim Butler and the Global Hospitality Group®
Hotel Lawyers
| Authors of
July 19, 2012

Hotels and restaurants are among many other businesses that monitor employees at work through video surveillance, and through employees' use of company-issued computers and smart phones. While employers gain benefits such as reducing theft, decreasing liability and ensuring safety procedures are followed, employees can feel that this electronic monitoring violates their privacy. In his article below, Mark Adams, a litigator in JMBM's Global Hospitality Group®, shares with us how courts are ruling in lawsuits that deal with electronic surveillance of employees. He also gives employers advice on how to prevent these lawsuits from happening.

Losing the expectation of privacy bit by bit, byte by byte


Mark S. Adams | Hotel Lawyer

A version of this article was first published in The Bottom Line, the official publication of the California State Bar's section on Law Practice Management &Technology .

For a generation that has become exceedingly facile with electronic gadgetry and desensitized to the massive amounts of data this gadgetry produces, it perhaps comes as no surprise that video surveillance and on-line monitoring by employers of present and potential employees' electronic profiles and fingerprints have become the norm.

Billions of emails are sent and received every day. Facebook has over 750 million active users, Twitter more than 75 million users, and YouTube boasts more than 24 hours of uploads every minute, every day, with over 2 billion viewers daily. Closed circuit digital video cameras are commonplace, from office security cameras to ATMs. All of this data can be available for review and analysis by friend or foe, including current and potential employers.

Social Media

Many employers now routinely vet their recruits through the Internet--not just before a formal offer is given, but before even taking an interview. Social media sites provide firms with the kind of information about candidates that was simply unavailable from any source just a few years ago. A company can now easily get a glimpse of a candidate's off-duty persona to help determine if there will be a good fit. For example, an Internet-chatty candidate may say some nasty things about his or her former employer that would never appear on a resume; perhaps express an ambivalence about the industry; show an unhealthy appetite for engaging in high risk, dangerous activities; or flaunt an illicit, drug-friendly lifestyle. In short, the Internet may reveal a person who is far different than the well-dressed, firm-handshaking, smiling face that's sitting in the lobby waiting for his or her interview. Absent the use of this Internet vetting process for the purpose of unlawful discrimination, at present, employers are free to make such Internet investigations without any legal repercussions.

Unlike potential employers, current employers have always kept an eye on their employees, and rightly so, because employers suffer the cost of such behaviors as employee theft and various kinds of employee mishaps and indiscretions. Although social media provides current employers with that same window into their employees' lives--a window voluntarily opened by employees when they post things on a social media site--the new age of electronics offers current employers even more insight. Current employers have access to their employees' electronic cache. Some employees may have a company-issued smartphone and computer. Usually the company will also assign an email address and provide the Internet access. These give access to information and activities that are not volunteered by the employee. For example, an electronic file scan may catch an employee receiving and sending sexually explicit emails, creating a sexually hostile work environment, or disclosing sensitive company communications via email to third party friends and family.

But there is a big difference between looking at something an employee voluntarily makes public and something obtained from the employee without their permission.

California courts have provided some guidance on what types of actions cross the line from appropriate supervision to invasion of an employee's right to privacy. If the line is crossed, the employer risks a claim for invasion of privacy against an employer based on two separate legal theories, one grounded on the California Constitution, and the other based on a common law tort of invasion of privacy. Morphed together, the two types of privacy claims turn on the nature of the intrusion upon the reasonable expectations of privacy, and the offensiveness or seriousness of the intrusion, including any justifications. This leads to an inevitable balancing of interests, the outcome of which is often decided on a case-by-case basis.

To protect themselves from meritorious claims, employers should seek to diminish their employees' expectations of privacy. This can be done by implementing and religiously following a "no expectation of privacy policy," in which a written statement clearly expressing the policy is given to and acknowledged by all of the employees, from executives to entry level staff. This statement should also be clearly posted in any areas where videotaping is done. Such a policy typically states that the employer routinely, and without any further notice to the employee, will monitor computer use; read emails, texts and Twitter updates; listen to voicemails; and review hidden videotaped surveillance. But beyond the implementation and acknowledgement of such a policy, the facts in a particular case always carry ponderous weight on whether the employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy.


Regarding emails, the reasonable expectation of privacy can depend on whether the employee used a company computer, the company's Internet service provider, a company-issued email address, and a secret password to transmit and receive their emails. In Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1047, the plaintiff sent emails to her attorney regarding a possible legal action against her employer. The employer obtained the emails from her computer: the plaintiff demanded them back claiming that they were attorney-client privileged communications, and sued the employer for invasion of privacy. The court held that the emails did not constitute "confidential communication between client and lawyer" within the meaning of Evidence Code section 952 because the plaintiff used the employer's computer to send the emails despite the facts that she had been told of the company's policy that its computers were to be used only for company business and that employees were prohibited from using them to send or receive personal email. She had been warned that the company would monitor its computers for compliance with this company policy and thus might "inspect all files and messages ... at any time;" and she had been explicitly advised that employees using company computers to create or maintain personal information or messages "have no right of privacy with respect to that information or message." The court stated:

When Holmes emailed her attorney, she did not use her home computer to which some unknown persons involved in the delivery, facilitation, or storage may have access. Had she done so, that would have been a privileged communication unless Holmes allowed others to have access to her emails and disclosed their content. Instead, she used the defendants' computer, after being expressly advised this was a means that was not private and was accessible by Petrovich, the very person about whom Holmes contacted her lawyer and whom Holmes sued. This is akin to consulting her attorney in one of defendants' conference rooms, in a loud voice, with the door open, yet unreasonably expecting that the conversation overheard by Petrovich would be privileged.

The Holmes court distinguished Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc. (2010) 201 N.J. 300, 990 A.2d 650, 659, 663-664, in which that court found that the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the use of a personal Web-based email account--even though accessed from the employer's computer--where the use of such an account was not clearly covered by the company's policy and the emails contained a standard hallmark warning that the communications were personal, confidential, attorney-client communications.

Video Surveillance

As to the covert videotaping of employees, the legality of this is anchored by two extremes: covert videotaping in open and accessible workplace areas, and videotaping in areas reserved for personal acts.

Videotaping in open and accessible workplace areas can be lawful. For example, the lobby and hallways of your hotel may electronically monitor the comings and goings of guests and employees for security purposes. That is lawful. However, videotaping areas reserved for personal acts, such as employee restrooms, is unlawful. Indeed, there is little justification in any company, that would override the right and expectation of privacy in such a personal area.

The outcome in situations that fall somewhere in between videotaping in open and accessible workplace areas, and videotaping in areas reserved for personal acts, are factually driven. For example, a computer server room, which is locked and accessible only by a few people in the firm, may have electronic surveillance all the time. It is only actually monitored a few times a day, or when a high heat sensor, or a water intrusion alarm is triggered. This is a rational, reasonable intrusion. Even so, the eye of the camera can catch unintended images, and so the best practice is to always make a clear disclosure that electronic surveillance is taking place, even if the surveillance is for a rational, lawful purpose.

Employer wins with limited intrusion

In Hernandez v. Hillsides Inc. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 272, the defendants operated a private, nonprofit residential facility for neglected and abused children, including the victims of sexual abuse. Plaintiffs were employees of the defendants. The plaintiffs shared an enclosed office and performed clerical work during daytime business hours. Their office had a door that could be locked, with blinds that could be drawn, and the plaintiffs could perform grooming or hygiene activities or conduct personal conversations, during the workday in that office. The director of the facility, learned that late at night, after the plaintiffs had left the premises, an unknown person had repeatedly used a computer in the plaintiffs' office to access the Internet and view pornographic Web sites. Such use conflicted with company policy and with the defendants' aim of providing a safe haven for the children.

Concerned that the culprit might be a staff member who worked with the children, and without notifying the plaintiffs, the defendants set up a hidden camera in the plaintiffs' office. The camera could be made operable from a remote location, at any time of day or night, to permit either live viewing or videotaping of activities around the targeted workstation. It is undisputed that the camera was not operated for either of these purposes during business hours, and, as a consequence, the plaintiffs' activities in the office were not viewed or recorded by means of the surveillance system. The defendants did not expect or intend to catch the plaintiffs on tape.

After discovering the hidden camera in their office, the plaintiffs sued the defendants, for, among other things, violation of their privacy rights under the California Constitution. The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, and reinstituted the trial court's order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court stated:

We appreciate plaintiffs' dismay over the discovery of video equipment--small, blinking, and hot to the touch--that their employer had hidden among their personal effects in an office that was reasonably secluded from public access and view. Nothing we say here is meant to encourage such surveillance measures, particularly in the absence of adequate notice to persons within camera range that their actions may be viewed and taped.

Nevertheless, considering all the relevant circumstances, plaintiffs have not established, and cannot reasonably expect to establish, that the particular conduct of the defendants that is challenged in this case was highly offensive and constituted an egregious violation of prevailing social norms. We reach this conclusion from the standpoint of a reasonable person based on defendants' vigorous efforts to avoid intruding on plaintiffs' visual privacy altogether. Activation of the surveillance system was narrowly tailored in place, time, and scope, and was prompted by legitimate business concerns. Plaintiffs were not at risk of being monitored or recorded during regular work hours and were never actually caught on camera or videotape.

Employer loses when intrusion goes too far

In Carter v. County of Los Angeles (C.D.Cal 2011), 770 F.Supp.2d 1042, a case involving government employees (who have greater expectations of privacy from their government employers), the employer received an anonymous complaint alleging that a plaintiff employee, had engaged in sexual activity with a visitor in the dispatch room while she was on duty at night. The employer then installed a hidden video camera in a fake smoke detector in the dispatch room, and set it to record continuously, every hour of every day. The camera recorded several incidences of the act. One of the plaintiffs discovered the hidden camera a few months after it was installed and she (and other employees) sued her employer for, among other things, violation of her privacy rights under the California Constitution. In assessing the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' privacy expectations, the court noted that the dispatch room door remained closed during regular business hours, non-dispatcher employees would typically knock before entering, and no one could see into the dispatch room. Furthermore, after regular business hours, it was not uncommon for plaintiffs to work alone in the room. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the dispatch room.

In assessing whether the surveillance was a sufficiently serious intrusion as to constitute an egregious breach of social norms, the court noted that the plaintiffs were recorded while they unknowingly performed private acts, the surveillance was constant, and it continued even after the stated objective was complete. The defendant monitored all of the employees, not just the subject plaintiff. Finally, there were several less intrusive methods available to the defendants in investigating the allegations against the plaintiff employee, but the defendants did not utilize them. Thus, the court held that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' right to privacy under the California Constitution.

The Bottom Line

Right to privacy cases turn on whether the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances. The employer has to somewhat manage the risk of a claim of a violation of privacy and an adverse result by minimizing the employee's reasonable expectation of privacy. The employer should disclose to the employee that the employee is being observed and monitored, and how that is being done.


Mark S. Adams is an experienced trial lawyer and a member of JMBM's Global Hospitality Group® and Chinese Investment Group™. He focuses his practice on business litigation including contracts, corporate and partnership disputes, and hospitality disputes and litigation. On behalf of hotel and resort owners, Mark has successfully litigated the termination of long-term, no-cut, hotel management agreements, franchise agreements, fiduciary duty issues, investor-owner disputes, TOT assessments, and more. He has wide-ranging trial experience in a variety of commercial disputes, including complex multi-party litigation and class actions. He has tried numerous cases in state courts, federal courts, and in domestic and international arbitrations, and is a frequent author and speaker on trial practice. Mark's trial wins have been covered by Forbes, Reuters, and other publications. He has obtained two of California's annual 50 largest jury verdicts in the same year. Mark has taken or defended nearly 1,000 depositions throughout North America, Europe and the Middle East. He has been quoted as an expert on noncompete agreements in the Wall Street Journal. For more information, contact Mark at 949. 623.7230 or [email protected].

This is Jim Butler, author of and hotel lawyer, signing off. We've done more than $60 billion of hotel transactions and have developed innovative solutions to unlock value from hotels. Who's your hotel lawyer?

Our Perspective. We represent hotel lenders, owners and investors. We have helped our clients find business and legal solutions for more than $60 billion of hotel transactions, involving more than 1,300 properties all over the world. For more information, please contact Jim Butler at [email protected] or +1 (310) 201-3526.
Jim Butler is a founding partner of JMBM, and Chairman of its Global Hospitality Group® and Chinese Investment Group™. Jim is one of the top hospitality attorneys in the world. GOOGLE "hotel lawyer" and you will see why.

Jim and his team are more than "just" great hotel lawyers. They are also hospitality consultants and business advisors. They are deal makers. They can help find the right operator or capital provider. They know who to call and how to reach them.


Jim Butler

[email protected]


Receive Your Hospitality Industry Headlines via Email for Free! Subscribe Here  

To Learn More About Your News Being Published on Hotel-Online Inquire Here
Also See: How to Buy a Hotel Handbook: Labor and Employment Tips; Buying a hotel - the Hotel Purchase Agreement documentation and process / Jim Butler, Catherine DeBono Holmes and Marta M. Fernandez / July 2012

How to Terminate a Hotel Management Agreement: A Tale of Two Hotels - Marriott's Edition Waikiki and Fairmont's Turnberry Isle Resort; Two owners terminate long-term hotel management agreements, seize control of their hotels from branded operators, and then settle their litigation / July 2012

EB-5 Lawyer Alert #3: Update on California TEA designation procedure. What's the problem in California! / Jim Butler, Catherine DeBono Holmes and Victor T. Shum / June 2012

How to Finance Hotel Development in 2012....Alternate financing for new hotel construction in a brave new world / Jim Butler / June 2012

'Cyber Accessibility' is the New Frontier for ADA Lawsuits. Your Next DOJ Investigation or ADA Class Action Could be Just a Mouse Click Away! / Jim Butler / June 2012

ADA Compliance and Defense Lawyer: ADA Experts Discuss Hottest Issues Facing the Hotel Industry Today / Jim Butler / May 2012 Launches; Portal to Knowledge for the Hospitality Industry; JMBM's Global Hospitality Group® of Hotel Lawyers Provide Comprehensive Hospitality Resource / May 2012

Update on California's EB-5 Policy Regarding Designation of Targeted Employment Areas or TEAs / Jim Butler / May 2012

Successful Joint Ventures for Hotel Development, Acquisition and Financing / Jim Butler / May 2012

Hotel Lawyer: Clarification on the DOJ's Amendment to the Pool Lift Extension / Jim Butler / May 2012

Hotel Lawyer from Meet the Money® - Lodging Industry Investment Council (LIIC) Announces its Top 10 Challenges for Hotel Industry in 2012 / Jim Butler / May 2012

Meet the Money® Conference Talks about Hotel Loans and Equity Investment, Creating Value with Hotel Value-add and Repositioning, Hotel Opportunistic Investment, Deal Making and Much More / Jim Butler / May 2012

ADA Compliance and Defense Lawyer Alert: Charles Schwab settles claim over website accessibility / Jim Butler / May 2012

EB-5 ALERT: California's New TEA Approach will Discourage EB-5 Investment in California / Jim Butler / May 2012

JMBM is One of 20 Hottest Law Firms in the U.S. Per the National Law Journal's Latest List / April 2012

Hotel Labor Lawyer: California Supreme Court Finally Gives Employers Some Good News in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court / Jim Butler & Travis Gemoets / April 2012

How to Negotiate a Hotel Management Agreement. 10 Tips for a Smoother Process / Jim Butler / March 2012

ADA Defense Lawyer: What does the ADA pool lift compliance extension mean to you? / Jim Butler / March 2012

DOJ Turnabout: Pool lift compliance deadline extended to May 15 / Jim Butler / March 2012

5 Things to Remember when Buying Hotel Notes / Jim Butler / March 2012

ADA Defense and Compliance Lawyer: More clarification or confusion on March 15 ADA standards? / Jim Butler / March 2012

ADA ALERT - A Call to Action Before the March 15, 2012 ADA Deadline / Jim Butler / February 2012 Interviews JMBM's ADA Defense and Compliance Lawyers: Hotels Handle Pool Lift Regulations / Jim Butler / February 2012

FBI Tips for Hotels; How to spot terrorists and what to do. / Jim Butler / February 2012

ADA Defense and Compliance Lawyer Advisory: DOJ Clarifies March 15, 2012 Mandatory Pool Lift Requirement! (Uh-oh!) / Jim Butler & Martin Orlick / February 2012

Quick! Can You Pass This 3-Question ADA Pop Quiz? / Jim Butler / January 2012

Hotel Lawyer in Los Angeles: ALIS - What's the commotion all about? Closing the conference hotel to outsiders. / Jim Butler / January 2012

Hotel Management Contract Disputes: Importance of 'Fiduciary' Duties in Owner-Operator Lawsuits / Jim Butler / January 2012

Litigation and Disputes Between Hotel Owners and Operators are on the Rise? Why? / Jim Butler / January 2012

ADA Defense Lawyer: New ADA Regulations Kick in Soon. Say goodbye to 'grandfathering' under the ADA / Jim Butler / November 2011

Hotel Lawyer in Washington D.C. - Why the Lodging Industry Will Continue to Do Well Despite Bumpy Markets and More / Jim Butler / November 2011

Chinese Investment in U.S. Hotels: What the Real Estate Professionals Want to Know / Jim Butler / October 2011

Hotel Lawyer in Dallas Listening to the Special Servicers / Jim Butler / October 2011

Hotel Lawyer with Optimism for the Hotel Industry from the Dallas Lenders Conference, Fishing for Solutions 2011 / Jim Butler / October 2011

Updating Service Animal Policies of Your Hotel or Other 'Place of Lodging' / Jim Butler, Martin Orlick and David Sudeck / October 2011

Hotel Industry Alert: Some things to feel (very) good about! / Jim Butler / September 2011

Hotel Lawyers in Phoenix: It's not just me. The market has changed in just the last 60 days! / Jim Butler / September 2011

Hotel Labor and Employment Lawyer Update: Controversial Union Rights Notice Subject to Legal Challenge - Employers Should Not Rush To Post It / Jim Butler & Scott Brink / September 2011

Hotel Franchise Lawyer: Hotel Franchise Agreements and the 5 Biggest Mistakes a Hotel Owner Can Make / Jim Butler & Robert Braun / September 2011

Hotel Labor and Employment Lawyer Alert: The NLRB is making it harder to stay union free / Jim Butler & Scott Brink / September 2011

Tips from Hotel Franchise and Management Lawyers: Beware the Trap of Changing Brand Standards / Jim Butler & Robert Braun / September 2011

Labor and Employment Alert: New Law Requires Employers to Post Employee Rights Notice by November 14, 2011; NLRB Publishes Final Rule for Notification of Employee Rights / Scott Brink , JMBM / September 2011

Hotel Lending Lawyer: What every hotel lender needs to know about hotel due diligence / Jim Butler & Guy Maisnik / September 2011

Hotel Lending Lawyer: What every hotel lender needs to know about Cash Controls / Jim Butler & Guy Maisnik / August 2011

Hotel Lawyers on Terminating Hotel Operators: M Edition Lawsuit Against Marriott Has a New Twist Marriott is Replaced Overnight / Jim Butler / August 2011

Hotel Lawyers on Terminating Hotel Operators: Turnberry Resort Drops Fairmont Flag / Jim Butler / August 2011

Hotel Lending Lawyer: What every hotel lender needs to know about SNDA's / Jim Butler & Guy Maisnik / August 2011

Hotel Lending Lawyer: What every hotel lender needs to know about HMAs and hotel franchise agreements / Jim Butler & Guy Maisnik / August 2011

Hotel Lawyer on the Importance of Brands - Intellectual Property Rights and What They Mean: Family Suites Resorts v. Viacom International d/b/a MTV Networks - a Suit Over Branding / Jim Butler / August 2011

Hotel Lawyer on the Fiduciary, Contractual and Agency Duties of Hotel Brokers - Host Hotels & Resorts LP v. Molinaro Koger Litigation / Jim Butler / August 2011

M Waikiki's Edition Lawsuit Against Marriott International and Ian Schrager - an Owner's HMA Dispute with Marriott and What it All Means / Jim Butler / August 2011

Hotel Investment: Why Asian investors are targeting U.S. hotels for purchase and investment, and what could it mean for you? / Jim Butler / August 2011

Hotel Developers: Why a "regional center" may be the key to financing your next hotel development or expansion. And what you need to know... / Jim Butler / July 2011

How to use the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visa Program for financing / Jim Butler / July 2011

JMBM Announces Formation of the Chinese Investment Group™ - Hotels, Real Estate, EB-5 Immigrant Investor Visas / July 2011

Hotel Lawyer: How do you know when you should set up a captive insurance company for your hotel? Take our "litmus test". / Jim Butler & Gordon Schaller / July 2011

Hotel Lawyer: What you need to know about the "ancillary benefits" of setting up a captive insurance company / Jim Butler & Gordon Schaller / June 2011

Hotel Lawyer: Are you thinking about setting up a captive insurance company? Maybe you should be. . . / Jim Butler & Gordon Schaller / June 2011

Hotel Lawyer in New York with pre-NYU industry forecast: Sunny with occasional clouds and NO storms on the horizon / Jim Butler / June 2011

Hotel Lawyer with the Executive Roundtable Results; Debt is returning, equity is out looking, and we've passed the bottom of the trough. Why now is the time to purchase a hotel. / Jim Butler / June 2011

ADA Defense Lawyer: How to Quickly Lose Business. (No ADA-Compliant Reservation System) / Jim Butler & David Sudeck / May 2011

Hotel Lawyer with Fresh Perspectives on the Hotel Industry from Smith Travel / Jim Butler / May 2011

Hospitality Lawyers with PKF and Mark Woodworth's Lodging Overview / Jim Butler / May 2011

Hotel Lawyers' Updates on Capital and Debt Markets for Hotels, Transaction Sales Data and Financings / Jim Butler / May 2011

Hotel Lawyer with Updates on Hotel Cap Rates, Values and Transactions / Jim Butler / May 2011

Hotel Lawyer with nuggets from JMBM's Meet the Money® 2011 / Jim Butler / May 2011

Hotel Lawyer: The hotel transaction market is heating up! / Jim Butler / April 2011

Hotel Lawyer with good news! A new federal court decision upholds condo hotel structure. No "securities" involved as structured. Disgruntled condo hotel unit purchaser lawsuit dismissed. / Jim Butler / April 2011

Meet the Money®: Hotel Financing Renaissance is Underway! / Jim Butler / April 2011

JMBM’s Global Hospitality Group® announces publication of The HMA Handbook, a FREE practical guide for negotiating Hotel Management Agreements for Hotel Owners, Developers, Investors and Lenders / March 2011

Buying a Hotel? Don't Buy an ADA Lawsuit or DOJ Investigation / Jim Butler / March 2011

Hotel Lawyer on Hotel Management Agreements: Exculpation Clauses for Protecting the Owner's Assets / Jim Butler / February 2011

ADA Defense Lawyer: How to handle an ADA lawsuit....and How not to do it / Jim Butler / February 2011

Hotel Lawyer: 5 Key Elements for Good Hotel Management Agreement Budget Provisions / Jim Butler / February 2011

How improving fundamentals make 2011 the year of "Great Expectations" for the Hotel Industry / Jim Butler / February 2011

Ask the Hotel Lawyer: 2011 is starting as the year of "Great Expectations" for the hotel industry! / Jim Butler / January 2011

Hotel ADA Defense Lawyer: How a recent ADA case affects all hotels but particularly conference centers and meeting hotels / Jim Butler / January 2011

Hotel Lawyer: So, You Think You Want to Buy a Hotel? For savvy investors, the time could be right / Jim Butler / January 2011

Sheraton Universal Hotel Sale Facilitated by JMBM's Global Hospitality Group® / Jim Butler / January 2011

To search Hotel Online data base of News and Trends Go to Hotel.OnlineSearch

Home | Welcome| Hospitality News
| Industry Resources

Please contact Hotel.Online with your comments and suggestions.