CASE STUDY

Case Study



Case Study

Introduction

From the given case it is clear that there is a violation of workplace privacy. But it should be kept in mind that the employer has every right to scrutinize the activities of its employees as long as it's within the laws. Privacy can be viewed as an entitlement, and therefore as a fundamental right, or as one interest to be balanced against others. Privacy in the workplace concerns the balance between the right of the employee to personal space and the management of his or her personal information with the right of the employer to manage that workplace and to make effective decisions. Some means of gathering information about employees may focus on inappropriate information, or the employer may use methods that are unreasonable or intrusive. Yet the employer also legitimately seeks to know as much about the employee as possible and the employee seeks to prevent unreasonable intrusions. Technology has muddied the issues involved because it allows for access to information using methods never before considered.

This discussion will first highlight the reasons why an employer may opt to collect information or otherwise monitor the workplace, as well as the concerns of employees based on this monitoring, and the resulting impact of the information-gathering processes. We will explore the nature of monitoring, the various means by which the employer is able to and does monitor the workplace (including the regulation of off-work acts as well as drug testing), and present the legal and ethical constraints in doing so.

Why Do Firms Seek Personal Information or Monitor Their Workplaces?

There are numerous bases that support the choice of a firm to monitor. One justification for an employer's choice to monitor stems from the law itself that, more and more, holds an employer liable for the acts of its employees. With this in mind, employers seek greater and greater amounts of information about possible and current employees to protect themselves from the tort of negligent hiring or vicarious liability. On the other hand, investigating areas that bear little, if any, relevance to the individual's ability to perform a job exposes the employer to liability for privacy invasions, as will be discussed below.

Employers must determine whether it is appropriate to investigate an employee's driving record for a position as an accountant or to conduct a credit check for an individual who works as a delivery person. Employers also point to the proliferation of employee theft that may be uncovered through some form of surveillance or monitoring. The U.S. Department of Commerce found in 1990 that businesses lose approximately $40 billion each year to employee theft and that 75% of this theft is usually undiscovered. In addition, monitoring may uncover and thus prevent increasing employee industrial espionage.

The reasons for monitoring can, therefore, be categorized into two categories: managing the workplace and protecting against or preparing for issues involving legal liability. An employer's interest in managing the workplace may require it to ensure compliance with affirmative action by investigating the backgrounds, ...