Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc.

47 Cal.4th 272, 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 274, 211 P.3d 1063 (2009)

Free access to 20,000 Casebriefs

Legal Analysis

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

Nature Of The Case

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Facts

Ds operate a private nonprofit residential facility for neglected and abused children, including the victims of sexual abuse. Ps, Abigail Hernandez and Maria-Jose Lopez were employed by D. They shared an enclosed office and performed clerical work during daytime business hours. Each had her own desk and computer workstation. The office had three windows on the exterior walls. Blinds on the windows could be opened and closed. The office also had a door that could be closed and locked. A “doggie” door near the bottom of the office door was missing its flap, creating a small, low opening into the office. Several people, besides Ps, had keys to their office. Occasionally Ps used their office to change or adjust their clothing. Hernandez replaced her work clothes with athletic wear before leaving Hillsides to exercise at the end of the day. Two or three times, Lopez raised her shirt to show Hernandez her postpregnancy figure. Both women stated in their declarations that the blinds were drawn and the door was closed when this activity occurred. Hernandez also recalled the door being locked when she changed clothes. Ds' policy was to prevent employees from using its electronic communications systems in a manner that defamed, harassed, or harmed others, or that subjected the company to “significant legal exposure.” Illegal and inappropriate activity was prohibited, such as accessing sexually offensive Web sites or displaying, downloading, or distributing sexually explicit material. The policy further contemplated the use of electronic “personal passwords.” However, it warned employees that they had “no reasonable expectation of privacy in any … use of Company computers, network and system.” Along the same lines, the policy advised that all data created, transmitted, downloaded, or stored on the system was Ds' property and that the company could “monitor and record employee activity on its computers, network … and e-mail systems,” including “e-mail messages[,] … files stored or transmitted[,] and … web sites accessed.” John M. Hitchcock (Hitchcock), the director of the facility, learned that late at night after Ps had left the premises, an unknown person had repeatedly used a computer in Ps' office to access the Internet and view pornographic Web sites. Such use conflicted with company policy and with Ds' aim of providing a safe haven for the children. Hitchcock was concerned that the user might be a staff member who worked with the children. Hitchcock set up a hidden camera in Ps' office. The camera was not operated during business hours. Ps' activities in the office were not viewed or recorded. Ps discovered the hidden camera and filed this tort action. Ps alleged an invasion of privacy, alluding to principles and authorities under both the common law and the state Constitution. The other two claims alleged intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Ds moved for summary judgment. The actual tapes viewed had nothing on them other than a recording of an empty office. Hernandez apologized for installing the camera and said the surveillance was not aimed at P, but at an intruder who had used Lopez's computer to access inappropriate Web sites. The trial court found no triable issue and granted summary judgment to Ds. The Court of Appeal reversed as to the invasion-of-privacy count. It held that Ps had a reasonable expectation to be free from this kind of intrusion in the workplace, notwithstanding evidence that they were never viewed or recorded and that they worked in a shared office to which others had access. It concluded that Ds' conduct was highly offensive. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that Ps had not presented triable claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and that such counts should be dismissed. Ds appealed.

Issues

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Holding & Decision

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner

© 2025 Casebriefsco.com. All Rights Reserved.