Advertisement

June 20, 2013

Big Brother in the Workplace: Understanding the Legal Implications of Employee Monitoring

Much Shelist

Many employers have an interest in monitoring the use of their phone/voicemail, e-mail and Internet systems by employees. After all, companies can be held liable for misuse of their communication systems that result in claims of sexual harassment or a hostile work environment. Additionally, inappropriate use of electronic communications can make a company's confidential information vulnerable. Due to employers' potential exposure at the hands of employees, many companies have implemented devices that record and monitor employee conduct. When deciding to monitor communications, however, employers should consider federal and state law to ensure full compliance with their legal obligations.

Federal Law

Pursuant to the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the interception of any "wire, aural, or electronic communication" is prohibited, with some clearly defined exceptions. Violations of the ECPA can lead to fines and imprisonment for up to five years. Some exceptions to the ECPA include:

  • One-Party Consent: The ECPA does not prohibit interception of communications if either the sender or the recipient gives prior consent. However, consent cannot be implied and must be given prior to the interception.
  • Business Use Exception: The ECPA does not prohibit interception if it is conducted within the ordinary course of an employer's business and the employer has a legal interest in the subject matter of the conversation. 

Illinois Law

Illinois law is more stringent than federal law. Pursuant to the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, "a person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of a conversation," unless he or she does so with "the consent of all parties to the conversation of communication." Despite this language, Illinois courts initially interpreted the statute to allow a one-party exception, similar to the ECPA exception. The state legislature, however, later revised the statute to reconfirm that consent of all parties is required.

On the other hand, Illinois law does allow a business use exception. Specifically, a business engaged in marketing/opinion research or telephone solicitation may record or listen to telephone conversations for the purpose of "service quality control, education or training of employees." If any recording authorized by this exemption results in the recording of a conversation that does not relate to the specific business purpose allowed, the recording must be destroyed as soon as practicable.
 
Violation of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act is a felony offense and punishable by up to five years of imprisonment. There are also civil remedies available in Illinois to individuals whose conversations are subject to eavesdropping.

Due to the federal and state laws that address employee communications, it is advisable to confer with legal counsel before implementing a company policy or procedure to monitor telephone calls, e-mails or other electronic communications

© 2013 Much Shelist, P.C.

About the Author

Much Shelist is a full-service business law firm based in Chicago. Since our founding in 1970, and as we have grown to approximately 85 attorneys, we have nurtured a collaborative culture that emphasizes sophisticated, senior-level attention to client matters, combined with a collegial, creative atmosphere that allows us to deliver the highest level of service to every client. In addition, we are firmly committed to remaining independent, thus creating an environment of stability for our clients and our attorneys.

We serve as...

312-521-2000

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.