In Iowa, Invasion of Privacy Claim Does Not Require Actual Viewing or Recording

Recently, the Iowa Supreme Court allowed an employee to continue with a case against an employer who placed a video camera in a restroom, even though the camera was inoperable where it was placed. The employer had two female assistants, the plaintiff and her co-worker, in his insurance company. The employer found a hypodermic needle in the office's parking lot and suspected that the co-worker was using illegal drugs. He installed a security camera in the office's bathroom, but was unable to see anything on the screen – the camera either showed static or displayed a "no signal" message. The plaintiff discovered the camera the next day and called the police, later filing suit against the employer. The employer moved to dismiss the plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim, arguing that because he was not actually able to record or view the plaintiff, the camera was not an intrusion on her privacy. The court decided that in order to bring a case for invasion of privacy, the plaintiff only needed to show that the camera could have invaded her privacy, not that the employer actually viewed or recorded anything with the camera. In this case, although the camera did not actually record or display images, the court determined that the plaintiff had produced enough evidence for a reasonable judge or jury to determine that the camera was operational and capable of recording activities in the bathroom, and refused to dismiss her case.

Tip: Employers may open themselves to liability if they place cameras in bathrooms or other areas of "intimate activity," even if the employer does not actually watch or record any activity.