Surveillance camera in gym locker rooms

[sevensilly]

Someone broke the door to the sauna that is in the men's gym locker room at work. The gym staff are very adamant about determining who broke the door and are treating it as vandalism. My question is: is it legal for the staff to install a surveillance camera in the locker rooms without informing the members and their guests?

I live in Ohio and the gym that I am referring to is owned by my employing company.

 

[Exx_head]

Probably not. You are entitled to privacy in areas where it should reasonably be expected. Restrooms are an example.

There is a difference, however from firing you vs. prosecuting you under the law. Laws vary from state to state as to what employers could do.

 

[Thelazer]

From what I remember there was a few states left were this actully WAS Legal.

Either way, it's not somthing I'd advise your company to do. If that tape gets out, or a lawsuit happens.. watch out!

Jay

 

[Mariposa]

Taken from Ohio State Bar Association Legal Tips for Small Businesses:

Q.: What about videotaping our employees' activities in our building? Can we do that without telling them?
A.: Again, it is always prudent to let your employees know that their activities at work may be recorded. You have to be careful not to videotape private activities of your employees; for example, you should not place cameras in the restrooms.

-by Kenneth Zirm, partner in the Cleveland firm, Walter & Haverfield, PLL.

My source

I tried to find the exact statute on the State of Ohio's website, but my search revealed no specific language relating directly to an employer videotaping employees in a locker room.

I agree with Exx-head that a locker room is a location where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. An alternative course of action your employer could take that would probably be legal would be to point a camera in the general direction of the sauna door to monitor any activity with specific reference to the door. A sign should definitely be posted informing patrons that they are being videotaped- they could then ensure to cover up with towels and have an opportunity to protect their privacy as they enter the sauna.

sevensilly- has any further action been taken by your employer since your original post?

 

[Dr. J]

My current employer currently has hidden cameras watching the swimming pool. The line is a bit fuzzy since there is no separate changing area, nor any signs posted that they are being watched. And, the fact that we are simply monitoring rather than recording may make a difference, statute wise. *shrug*

While employers probably should let their patrons know they are being watched/filmed, they may not be required by law to do so.

 

[chrissie]

what about dressing rooms?

 

[Mariposa]

I found a terrific site addressing this issue, and it contains tons of interesting and relevant case law:

To View or Not to View

Some interesting excerpts:

However, when the video surveillance is hidden, or records areas generally considered "private," such as rest rooms or dressing rooms, the courts have been divided on whether an invasion of privacy has occurred. Perhaps even more troubling to an employer is that possibility that broad damages for emotional distress may be applied, without the usual safeguard of requiring a physical manifestation of the injury.

Employee Relations. Whether they have a right to privacy under employment circumstances or not, many employees find the intrusion offensive, and surveillance of private areas, such as dressing rooms, restrooms and locker rooms unacceptable. "The Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act" was introduced in Congress several years ago to address this concern. It required advance notification to both employees and customers of electronic monitoring and prohibited undisclosed monitoring of restroom, dressing room and locker room facilities, except when the employer suspected illegal conduct.

The article goes on to say that the Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act was never adopted.

In such a litigious society as the US, the CYA (cover your ass) principle is applied by smart employers. It is certainly less expensive, for example, for a department store to have signs printed informing consumers in dressing rooms that they are being monitored or videotaped than it would be to defend a suit for invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress.

It is my personal opinion that one has a lesser expectation of privacy in a store fitting room than in a locker room. Shoplifting is extraordinarily prevalent and costs consumers billions of dollars per year in price increases.

The locker room is generally an open area in which privacy with respect to viewing by others is essentially nil. That being said, I would like to apply the analogy that there is a big difference between letting someone see you naked and letting someone photograph or videotape you naked.

This is a great topic for discussion. :D

 

[chrissie]

the reason why i ask is because i know of people who have gotten caught shoplifting at a specific store. the only way they could have been caught is because of cameras in the dressing rooms. because of this i dont shop at that store. i dont want to be watched when im in my skivvies.