Trade Secrets and Employees:
Are you covering your Ass(ets)?
By Beth McDaniel, JD
& Steve McDaniel, PhD JD
Technology Litigators
Secret formulas, manufacturing pro- cesses, financial information, future product plans, customer lists…what
are your trade secrets and what are you
doing to protect them from inadvertent or
intentional misuse or misappropriation by
your own employees? Trade secret protection is afforded to you as employer, but only
if you the employer take reasonable steps to
treat this information as confidential and
you provide notice to employees of the status of the materials.
So, how do we protect sensitive, confidential material and processes in the face
of iPhones and flash drives in the hands of
our employees? It’s no longer good enough
to lock up the secret formula under lock
and key. Everything from a secret formula
to an entire manufacturing process can be
uploaded and emailed, recorded or photographed in an instant. An employee can
literally walk out the door with the company in her pocket.
Taking measures to prevent theft or inadvertent disclosure of trade secrets is imperative in industries such as the paint and
coatings industry that rely heavily on
closely held manufacturing processes and
formulae. So, in order to limit exposure to
accidental disclosure or intentional misappropriation of the company jewels, you
might be considering audio, video or computer monitoring of your employees.
What is the line between the legitimate
protection of trade secrets and invasion of
employee privacy? A prudent employer will
know the answers to several touchy ques-
tions. The laws relating to integrated em-
ployee monitoring are complex at times and
vary from state to state, but it is generally
recognized that the prevention of theft or
misappropriation of confidential business in-
formation is a legitimate business reason for
monitoring employee workspace. It is the
employer’s job to implement a suitable pol-
icy that falls within the confines of the law.
Can you record employee
conversations?
Generally yes, but proceed with caution.
Both federal and state laws govern the use of
electronic equipment for purposes of wiretapping or eavesdropping (listening to conversations of others). There are both civil
and criminal penalties for violations of these
laws, and the laws vary from state to state.
The federal law allows the recording of
phone calls and other electronic communications so long as one party to the conversation consents to the recording. A majority of
the states have adopted wiretapping statutes
based on the federal law. There are twelve
states, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington which have
adopted more stringent standards, in which
consent by all parties to the phone call is required. These twelve states are often referred
to as the “two-party states,” however, if there
are more than two parties on the call, all parties need to give consent. Although most of
these statutes address wiretapping and eavesdropping, they also tend to apply to phone
calls and in-person conversations. Regardless of the state, it is illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, don’t
have consent and could not naturally overhear. In most states, it is also illegal to disclose the contents of any illegally obtained
call or communication.
Courts have recognized employee consent through the use of written consents
and policy manual provisions. The most
important thing is that the consent is clear
and unequivocal as to the employer’s actions. At all times, however, caution
should be taken in taping employee calls,
in that employees may be speaking to people in multi-party consent states.
Can I monitor my employees
using hidden cameras?
In most cases the answer is yes. Twenty-four
states have laws outlawing the installation or
use of hidden cameras in private places. A
private place is one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized
surveillance. A number of these states specifically outlaw the use of hidden cameras in
bathrooms and locker rooms or for the purposes of viewing nudity. In states where no
specific law exists, the interests of the employer in using hidden surveillance cameras
will be weighed against the employee’s expectation of privacy. In all cases, the expectation of an employee’s privacy in a bathroom
will outweigh any interest of the employer.
On the other hand, courts rarely find
that there is an objective reasonable expectation of privacy in any public place. Where
an employer hired a private investigator to
use surveillance equipment to videotape his
employee while he was in his car in a parking lot at a wedding reception and while he
was entering and leaving his home, the court
found that such surveillance was lawful because the employee-plaintiff did not allege
intrusion into any private place. See Salazar
v. Golden State Warriors, No. C-99-4825
CRB, 2000 U.S. Dist LEXIS 2366, at *2, 5-
6 (N.D. Cal. March 3, 2000).
So you cannot catch your employees
with their pants down (literally), but what
about when the employee is in a restricted
area of your manufacturing plant? With
the exceptions listed above regarding
bathrooms and locker rooms, quality control and theft prevention are legitimate
reasons for videotaping employee activity.
Courts rarely recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace. See
Marrs v. Marriott Corp., 830 F. Supp.
274, 283 (D. Md. 1992) (holding that
where an employee was videotaped picking a lock on a desk drawer, the employee
had no reasonable expectation of privacy
in an “open office”); Cox v. Hatch, 761
P.2d 556, 563 (Utah 1988) (finding no
reasonable expectation of privacy in a
“common workplace”).
Keep in mind, however, that the audio
portion of any videotape would be governed by the wiretapping laws.