Skip to main content
Log in

On-duty and Off-duty: Employee Right to Privacy and Employer’s Right to Control in the Private Sector

  • Published:
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The changing legal landscape of the right of the employer to control and monitor employee behavior is examined. Two distinct areas are defined: behavioral monitoring and behavioral restrictions. Relevant statutory laws and the developing common law are discussed. We also examine potential employee reactions to such policies by evaluating the reactions of graduate students to six employer policies including weight restrictions, grooming requirements, use of GPS locators, drug testing, ban on off-duty smoking, and email and internet monitoring. Students responded to these policies by determining the reasonable interest of the employer in the behaviors being monitored or controlled and the manner in which policies were implemented. Their comments suggest that employees may accept some level of monitoring or behavioral restrictions if the employer can make a convincing social account of the need for a policy. Additionally, the policy must be clearly communicated and properly implemented. However, restrictions on off-duty behavior were typically poorly received with the exception of illegal drug use.

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

  • Benner, J. (2001). South Dakota: Fire, don’t filter, wired news. July 7, http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,44357,00.html.

  • Cadrain, D. (2005). GPS use rising: Employee complaints likely to follow. society for human resource management HR news. February 9, http://www.shrm.org/hrnews_published/archives/CMS_011327.asp.

  • Cohen, C. F., & Balfour, A. (1998). Emerging issues in Title VII and Employment Appearance Codes. Journal of Individual Employment Rights, 7, 97–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L., Clinebell, S., & Kilpatrick, J. (1997). Office romances: The new battleground over employees’ right to privacy and the employers’ right to intervene. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 10, 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, N. J. (2003). Electronic monitoring to promote national security. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 15, 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovach, K. A., Conner, S. J, Livneh, T., Scallan, K. M., & Schwartz, R. L. (2000b). Electronic communication in the workplace—Something’s got to give. Business Horizons, 4, 59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovach, K. A., Jordan, J., Tansey, K., & Framinan, E. (2000a). The balance between employee privacy and employer interests. Business and Society Review, 105, 289–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson v. Detroit Medical Center 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 569, 2005.

  • Rushing v. Hershey Chocolate, 2000 U.S. App Lexis 27392, 6th Cir. 2000.

  • Scott, B. L. (2000–2001) Employee e-mail: A protected right to privacy. Journal of Individual Employment Rights, 9, 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoars v. Epson America, Inc., No. B073243 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991), review denied, 1994 Cal. LEXIS 3670, 1994.

  • Shulman, A. (2001). The extent of systematic monitoring of employee e-mail and internet usage. Workplace Surveillance Project, The Privacy Foundation.

  • Shumaker, T. A. (2002). An employee privacy policy fairly applied can prevent privacy litigation. National Public Accountant, 46, 31–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith v. Pillsbury, Inc. 914 F. Supp. 97, E.D. Pa., 1996.

  • Sugarman, S. D. (2003). Lifestyle discrimination in employment. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 24, 378–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, F., & Smith, W. P. (2005). Privacy and electronic monitoring in the workplace: A model of managerial cognition and relational trust. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 17, 173–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P., & Gain, P. (1999) An assembly line in the head: Work and employee relations in the call center. Industrial Relations, 30, 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, S. B., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4, 193–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • York v. General Electric Co., 759 N.E. 2d. 865, Ohio App. 2001.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cynthia F. Cohen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cohen, C.F., Cohen, M.E. On-duty and Off-duty: Employee Right to Privacy and Employer’s Right to Control in the Private Sector. Employ Respons Rights J 19, 235–246 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-007-9050-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-007-9050-2

Key words

Navigation