A Legal Guide to PRIVACY AND DATA SECURITY 2024

To assert this exemption to Minnesota’s wiretapping law, employers that wish to monitor employee communications with outside parties must be able to demonstrate that the employee in question consented to the monitoring of those communications. To do so, employers should, at a minimum, maintain policies that explicitly state that employees have no expectation of privacy in communications using employer-provided communication technologies. Employers should also document the employees’ written consent in the form of an acknowledgement that the employee has received and understands the employer’s policy, including that the employer has the right to monitor such communications. Surveillance and Creating an Impression of Surveillance. Employers may also be liable for an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA for engaging in the surveillance of, or creating an impression of surveillance of, union activity. In Magna International, Inc. , 7-CA-43093(1), 2001 NLRB LEXIS 134 (Mar. 9, 2001), for example, an administrative law judge held that it was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA for a supervisor to tell an employee that he liked a picture of her the day after the photo was posted to a union blog, because this suggested to the employee that her union activities were being monitored. Employers faced with organizing activity should be mindful of this complicated and often surprising body of the labor law. Additionally, roughly a dozen states, including New Jersey in just this past year, have passed laws protecting an employee’s location. These laws require employers provide written notice to employees prior to using a tracking device in or on a vehicle for the purpose of tracking the employee or the employee’s vehicle. Special Concerns for Public Employers. In addition to the above privacy laws, public employers are also subject to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects public employees from unreasonable searches and seizures, and this prohibition extends to electronic information. In 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of City of Ontario v. Quon , 130 S. Ct.

70

Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker