Common Law Invasion of Privacy. Minnesota recognizes invasion of an individual’s privacy as a tort action. See Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc. , 663 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 2003). The most common privacy claims raised by employees against employers are intrusion upon seclusion and publication of private facts. To prove either type of privacy claim, however, the plaintiff must first demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy. When information is publicly available on the Internet, it may be difficult for an individual to establish any reasonable expectation of privacy in the information. It is less clear, however, whether individuals might claim some reasonable expectation of privacy in social media sites with some privacy settings, such as Facebook, which allows users to limit access to the site to only individuals that have been approved by the user. In a case involving a restricted MySpace chat room used by employees, the court declined to recognize an invasion of privacy claim where a supervisor accessed a restricted site using a password given by an employee participating in the site. [See Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group , No. 06-5754, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88702 (D.N.J. Sept. 25, 2009)]. However, the employer was still found to have violated the Stored Communications Act. In order to establish that employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the activity or technology at issue, employer’s policies should clearly state that the resources provided to employees are provided for the benefit of the business and that employees do not have any expectation of privacy in the specific conduct. The policy should also reserve the right to monitor employee’s email and other uses of its own technology resources. With these policies in place, employers are much less vulnerable to an invasion of privacy claim. State Wiretapping Laws. Minnesota statutory law prohibits the interception and disclosure of wire, electronic, or oral communications. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02, Subd. 1. Any interception of these forms of communication will violate the law unless an exemption applies. However, an exemption applies if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02, Subd. 2(d).
69
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker