Facts: John Hitchcock is the director of a facility at Hillside Children’s Center, a residential facility for abused and neglected children. Abigail Hernandez and Maria-Jose Lopez were employed in clerical position in the office building. The plaintiffs share an office with a window with shades and a locking door that could be drawn for privacy. The plaintiffs claim that sometimes, they used the office to change clothes before leaving to the gym.
Issue: The issue was raised when the employees found a hidden video camera that the employer place in order to identified the third suspected of accessing pornography. Does the fact that the employees were never actually recorded let the employer off the liability hook? Did the nature of the employer’s…show more content… The director installed a camera without notifying the plaintiffs.The camera was activated before and after the plaintiffs came to work. After they discovered the camera they sued the firm with charges for intentional and negligent of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.The trial court decision was in favor of the defendant. The accuser appeal, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had met the elements of the claim. Those elements are the intrusion of privacy and the seriousness or offensiveness of the intrusion. Furthermore, they had a reasonable expectation to be free from the kind of privacy intrusion that occurred. Despite that the plaintiffs were never viewed or recorded the court concluded that the defendant's’ conduct was highly offensive. The defendants appealed, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not establish that the defendant's' conduct was highly offensive. In addition the activation of the surveillance system was based on legitimate business concerns. The plaintiffs were not at risk of being monitored or recorded during regular work hours and were never caught on camera or
