For decades, Connecticut employers have been permitted to engage in electronic surveillance of their employees, with limited exceptions that prohibit recording or monitoring the activities of employees in areas such as rest rooms or locker rooms. In 1998, Connecticut passed a statute intended to strike a further balance between employers’ right to monitor employees and employees’ privacy rights. That statute, commonly referred to as the “Electronic Monitoring Statute,” requires employers to give prior written notice to their employees of any electronic monitoring conducted by an employer on its premises.
A Connecticut case, Vitka v. City of Bridgeport, represents the latest development in the evolution of electronic monitoring in the employment setting. In that case, a Connecticut Superior Court was asked to determine whether an employer is permitted to perform electronic monitoring of their employees while they are driving a companyowned vehicle, and if so, whether the employer must provide prior written notice of such monitoring. The court answered “yes” to the first question and “no” to the second.
The Vitka case involved a municipal fire marshal, whose job duties included driving a City-owned van to various locations to conduct inspections. The van contained a GPS monitoring system. At some point, the fire department chief noticed that the data from the van’s GPS system was inconsistent with the daily reports that the fire marshal submitted to document where he had been during the day. Accordingly, the City began disciplinary proceedings against the fire marshal (and other employees with similar inconsistencies).
The fire marshal filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the City from using the data obtained from the GPS system in a disciplinary proceeding against him. He presented two arguments: He first argued that the City was prevented from monitoring his activities in a City van, analogizing the van to a locker room or rest room. His second argument was that, even if such monitoring were permitted, the City was required to provide employees with advance notice of such monitoring.
The court rejected both arguments. The court first concluded that a City-owned van was not akin to a locker room or rest room. Accordingly, the statutory section which precludes employers from electronic surveillance of employees in certain private areas did not apply to this situation. Second, the court ruled that since notice of electronic monitoring is required only for monitoring which takes place on the “employer’s premises,” that statute also did not apply to this situation. The court found that the monitoring in this case took place in a public area, and that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to travel on public roads.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR EMPLOYERS
Unless and until appellate level courts in Connecticut reverse this decision, or the Connecticut legislature amends the applicable statutes, employers are free to install GPS systems in company-owned vehicles, and to use the data extracted from such systems to monitor employees and use such information to discipline employees where appropriate. In addition, employers are not required to include such monitoring in their notices of electronic monitoring, but there is really no downside to including GPS monitoring in the notices. Employees’ knowledge that their employers have the ability to track their whereabouts should have a chilling effect on employee frolics.