Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

Have You Considered the Legality of Workplace Recording Policies?

Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

Date: March 21, 2017

Key Contacts

Back

Second Circuit to Determine Legality of Secret Workplace Recording Policies

Now that everyone has a smart phone, it is easy to record a conversation without the other person even being aware. In the workplace, employers are trying to take steps to prevent employees from secretly recording them. However, such policies can lead to legal hot water.

Digital Evidence in Employment Lawsuits

Employers are understandably leery of cell phone recordings coming back to haunt them. An increasing percentage of employment cases involve digital evidence, whether it is a text message, social media post, or a cell phone conversation. Given that so many employment lawsuits also come down to he said/she said, a recorded conversation containing a discriminatory or harassing statement can be extremely incriminatory. Even if the recordings are not admissible in court, employees may threaten to release the recordings to the press, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or labor union in an attempt to secure a favorable settlement.

NLRB’s Position on Workplace Recordings

The National Labor Review Board (NLRB) has adopted the position that overly broad workplace rules prohibiting surreptitious recordings may violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7” of the Act. Section 7 guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” as well as the right “to refrain from any or all such activities.”

The NLRB adopted the position in Whole Foods Market, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 87 (Dec. 24, 2015), which is now before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit involves two provisions in Whole Foods Market, Inc.’s (Whole Foods) General Information Guide (GIG) that prohibit recording in the workplace without prior management approval. One such rule states:

It is a violation of Whole Foods Market policy to record conversations with a tape recorder or other recording device (including a cell phone or any electronic device) unless prior approval is received from your store or facility leadership. The purpose of this policy is to eliminate a chilling effect on the expression of views that may exist when one person is concerned that his or her conversation with another is being secretly record- ed. This concern can inhibit spontaneous and honest dialogue especially when sensitive or confidential matters are being discussed.

In defense of the policy, Whole Foods maintained that the restrictions are intended to encourage open and free conversations in the workplace and prevent the chilling effect that the fear of being recorded could have on that dialogue. However, despite the stated business justification, the NLRB found that the rules would reasonably be construed by employees to prohibit Section 7 activity. It further concluded that “the rule contains language setting forth an intention to promote open communication and dialogue does not cure the rule of its overbreadth.”

The case is now on appeal before the Second Circuit. During oral arguments, the court questioned whether employers could narrowly tailor their policies by including disclaimer language that informs workers that any restrictions are not intended to prohibit the recording of activities protected under Section 7 of the NLRA. While the NLRB previously rejected this compromise, it also failed to offer any other alternatives.

Given the lack of clear legal standards regarding workplace policies governing cell phone recordings, the Second Circuit’s decision should bring much-needed clarity. We encourage employers to check back here for updates and contact one of our employment attorneys with any concerns.

If you have questions, please contact us

If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Jorge R. de Armas or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests post image

Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests

If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]

Author: Christopher D. Warren

Link to post with title - "Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests"
The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions post image

The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions

Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions"
Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public post image

Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public

Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]

Author: Bryce S. Robins

Link to post with title - "Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public"
Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions post image

Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions

Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions"
Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide post image

Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide

For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]

Author: Bryce S. Robins

Link to post with title - "Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide"
Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination post image

Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]

Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh

Link to post with title - "Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.

Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.

Let`s get in touch!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!