Jump To Navigation
  • Appeals court overturns the conviction of a defendant denied his Constitutional right to examine the computer evidence used against him in a criminal proceeding.
  • Jury acquits former Riverside police officer of all criminal charges relating to his brief detention of an individuals under investigation for threatening another.
  • Jury awards former Hamilton County employee $135,000 for claims of race discrimination and retaliation. The plaintiff's husband, the highest-ranking African American within the county's juvenile court, was fired after 22 years of service when, after learning he was being paid less than white employees at the same level, he filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.
  • Jury finds UPS liable for workers compensation retaliation and age discrimination after the company fired a veteran employee just weeks after the employee filed a claim for an job-related injury. Employee ordered reinstated, awarded $330,000 in damages and attorneys fees.
  • Jury awards former corporate executive $875,000 after employer failed to compensate him as promised at the time of his hire.
  • Railroad, chemical company settle class action lawsuit filed by hundreds of Cincinnati-area residents forced to evacuate their homes due to an abandoned train tanker leaking a hazardous chemical in the air.
  • Ohio University alumni file class action lawsuit against after personal information of more than 200,000 alumni and students, including social security numbers, was left on an open server and hacked into for more than 15 months.
  • Veterans file class action lawsuit against United States Department of Veteran's Affairs after personal information of over 17 million veterans, including social security numbers and medical information, is stolen.
  • Ohio Secretary of State settles class action lawsuit over publication of social security numbers on its website and agrees to change its practices.
  • Former Cincinnati mayors file taxpayers lawsuit to force Hamilton County to honor its contracts over the stalled multi-million dollar Banks project.
  • Appeals court rules that woman's claims against Archdiocese of Cincinnati for forcing her to give up her child as a teenager after becoming impregnated by a priest should go forward.
  • Woman files class action against Hamilton County Clerk of Courts after her identity is stolen by criminals who obtained her personal information, including social security number, from the Clerk of Court's public website. Clerk of Courts changes publication practices just two days later.
  • Bank settles class action lawsuit on behalf of subcontractors not paid in connection with Erpenbeck fraud.
  • Cincinnati Bell settles class action lawsuit on behalf of customers improperly charged roaming fees.
  • City of Cincinnati pays $70,000 to Over-the-Rhine man after jury finds that police officer violated his Constitutional rights by entering his apartment without a warrant and physically arresting him for a minor misdemeanor noise violation.
  • Jury finds City of Covington unlawfully retaliated again former police officer when it filed him after filing a charge of disability discrimination with the EEOC.
Employment Law, Employee Center

Employment Law, Employee Center

Privacy Issues at Work

Technology is a boon to business, but it also raises complicated issues of privacy in the workplace. The vast majority of businesses use computers, and technology has enabled employers to monitor nearly every aspect of workplace communications involving employees' computer and telephone usage. Indeed, many companies take advantage of technology to monitor their employees' use of the Internet and e-mail. When an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy, however, such as with a physical space like a locked office, the employee may receive privacy protection. Drug testing by an employer, on the other hand, when the testing is reasonable and not a highly offensive intrusion, is usually acceptable. To help you determine what is and is not private in the workplace, contact an employment lawyer to discuss the validity of your company's privacy policies and procedures.

Employer's Right to Monitor Computer Usage

Employees who use company computers do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding what they do on those computers. E-mails in the company e-mail system are stored by employers, and employers have the right to search, monitor and view employee e-mail as long as there is a valid business purpose for doing so. Employees may be disciplined or fired if their e-mails violate company policy or the law. E-mails are frequently being used as evidence during unlawful discharge trials to show employee misconduct or wrongdoing.

Employers have the right to track the Web sites visited by their employees on company computers, to block employees from visiting specific Internet sites and to limit the amount of time an employee may spend on a specific Web site.

Employer's Right to Monitor Phone Calls and Voice Mail Messages

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) places some limitations on an employer's right to monitor its employees' telephone usage at work. Under the Act, an employer usually may not monitor an employee's personal phone calls, even those made from telephones on work premises. An employer may only monitor a personal call if the employee knows the particular call is being monitored and consents to it. An employer may not intercept an employee's voice mail, but it may be allowed to access voice mail messages that are in "electronic storage" on the company system.

Employer's Right to Conduct Post-Hiring Drug Testing

An employer may be able to require its employees to submit to drug screening; many state laws, however, limit the circumstances in which an employer may test for drugs and the methods it may use to perform such tests. An employer may generally test its employees for drug use if it limits the testing to:

  • Workers whose jobs expose them or others to a great deal of risk
  • Workers who have completed a drug rehabilitation program or are currently enrolled in such a program
  • Workers who have been involved in a work-related accident in which drug use was suspected
  • Workers whom management reasonably believes have been using drugs, based on physical evidence or behavior

Conclusion

Employees have general and specific rights to privacy in the workplace, but these rights are balanced against employers' rights to monitor business operations. If privacy is an issue in your workplace, contact an experienced employment law attorney to ensure that your rights are protected.

Copyright ©2009 FindLaw, a Thomson Business

DISCLAIMER: This site and any information contained herein are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek competent legal counsel for advice on any legal matter.

Return to Main

The Best Lawyers in America SuperLawyers