No Privacy Claim for Employer’s Hidden Camera

Defendant school officials have qualified immunity from a civil rights suit filed by a middle-school special education teacher who was captured by a camera hidden in a stuffed animal drinking beer in his school office; the Big Stone Gap U.S. District Court dismisses plaintiff’s claims arising from his termination after the search and his failure to comply with the terms of a “Last Chance Agreement.”

The “operational realities” of a government office may limit or even eliminate a public employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy in their offices, desks and file cabinets in some circumstances. Here, the teacher’s complaint alleges his office was located at the end of a dead-end hallway and was rarely visited by anyone other than the teacher’s aide who stored her belongings there.

The court agreed with defendants that plaintiff’s privacy expectations were likely tempered by the shared nature of the space and the realities of the school environment itself. Nonetheless, the teacher has pleaded sufficient facts at this stage of the proceedings to suggest he had at least some expectation of privacy in his office.

An employer’s work-related search of an employee’s office is judged by a reasonableness standard that is less stringent than the probable cause and warrant requirements imposed on law enforcement officials in the criminal context.

Courts are divided on the question of whether video surveillance is reasonable in the context of workplace searches like the one presented here. No 4^th Circuit case addresses whether hidden video surveillance is excessively intrusive.
The court finds it difficult to believe that a hidden video camera, used over a limited period of time to confirm or deny defendants’ particularized suspicion regarding plaintiff drinking alcohol on the job, would violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights – particularly given his “significant responsibilities” as a special education teacher and the correspondingly severe consequences that could result from his misconduct. Given the limited and conflicting case law on this issue, the court certainly cannot conclude that defendants’ actions violated any clearly established constitutional right. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Suit dismissed.

Chadwell v. Brewer (Conrad) No. 2:14cv03, Oct. 1, 2014; USDC at Big Stone Gap, Va. VLW 014-3-513, 14 pp.