Skip to main content
Log in

Review of employee privacy issues: Implications for law enforcement and other public and private sector agencies

  • Published:
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has been predicted that the number of lawsuits filed for workplace privacy violations will increase over the next few years primarily because of advances in technological innovations and a change in how workplace privacy is defined. This could have implications for law enforcement agencies as well as other public and private sector agencies. This article examines current interpretations of workplace privacy both in the public and private sectors and how courts have traditionally ruled on various types of privacy issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baggs, et al. v. Eagle-Picher Industries, 957 F. 2d 268 (6th Circuit 1992).

  • Baskerville, D. (1993). 10 things your employer might not tell you.Black Enterprise, 23(11), 298–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookler, R. (1992). Industry standards in workplace drug testing.Personnel Journal, April, 128–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henshaw, G. & Youmans, K. (1990). Employee privacy in the workplace and an employer's right to conduct workplace searches and surveillance.HR Legal Report, Spring, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leggett v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, 739 P.2d 1083 (Or.-App. 1987).

  • Leonard, B. (1994). Target stores agree to $2 million settlement.HR News, September, A4.

  • Litchford, R. (1994). Workplace searches in an administrative investigation.The Police Chief, January, 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNerney, D. (1994). Workplace privacy: Setting boundaries in the information age.HR Focus, 71, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller v. Motorola, 560 N.E.2d 900 (Ill. App. 1990).

  • National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 109 S.Ct. 1384 (1989).

  • O'Connor v. Ortega, 107 S.Ct., 1492 (1987).

  • Ott, T. (1996). No reasonable expectation of privacy in computerized messages.IPMA News, November, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overman, S. (1996). Privacy issue can pit employer/employee rights.HR News, Winter, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Restatement of Torts (Second), Section 652G (1977).

  • Rothstein, M.; Craver, C.; Schroeder, E.; Shoben, E.; & VanderVelde, L. (1994).Employment Law, West Pub. Co.: St. Paul, MN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sipior, J. & Ward, B. (1995). The ethical and legal quandary of e-mail privacy.Communications of the ACM, 38, 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, 109 S.Ct. 1402 (1989).

  • Smith, L. (1993). What the boss knows about you.Fortune, 128, 88–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soroka, et al. v. Dayton Hudson Corporation, 235 Cal. App. 3d 654 (1993).

  • Taibbi, R. (1993). Drug testing: Procedures and privacy issues.Current Health 2, 19, 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traynor, M. (1994). Computer e-mail privacy issues unresolved: How extensively can employers monitor messages?The National Law Journal, 16, S2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underhill, D. & Linthorst, T. (1996). E-mail in the workplace: How much is private?HR Society for Human Resource Management Newsletter, Winter, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young v. Jackson, 572 So.2d 378 (1990).

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Raynes, B.L. Review of employee privacy issues: Implications for law enforcement and other public and private sector agencies. J Police Crim Psych 12, 19–27 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02806698

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02806698

Keywords

Navigation