Supreme Court to Address Employee Privacy
Time 3 Minute Read

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will review the Ninth Circuit’s 2008 decision on employee privacy in Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co.  In Quon, the Ninth Circuit considered whether the Ontario, California police department and the City of Ontario violated a police officer’s privacy rights by reviewing private text messages the officer sent using a two-way pager issued by the police department.  The police officer had on several occasions exceeded the limit on the text messages provided by the department-paid plan.  Each time, the officer paid for the overage without anyone reviewing his text messages.  When the officer again exceeded the limit, his supervisor requested from the service provider and subsequently reviewed transcripts of the officer’s messages to determine if the messages were work-related.

The Ninth Circuit found that the supervisor's review of the messages violated the officer's privacy because the officer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communications.  The ruling was based primarily on the police department’s failure to consistently enforce its computer usage and monitoring policy that authorized the department to monitor and review employees' communications.  The court acknowledged that, had the monitoring policy been appropriately enforced, the officer would have had no expectation of privacy in the communications.

Importantly, because the officer was a state employee, his privacy claim – and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the officer's privacy had been violated – were rooted in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.  Although the Fourth Amendment does not apply to employee privacy claims against private employers (which instead are  subject to federal wiretap statutes and state law), in practice the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test courts apply to state common law privacy claims is virtually identical to the Fourth Amendment test.  Accordingly, the implication of Quon for private employers was a renewed focus on ensuring robust and consistent enforcement of employee monitoring policies.

Even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Quon, such a ruling would not necessarily offer relief to private employers facing state law employee privacy claims.  Some recent state court decisions suggest that non-government employees in some states may have a reasonable expectation that communications concerning employees’ medical or financial issues, income taxes, communications with an attorney, or other personal matters will remain private and not subject to monitoring by employers.  At least one state court has suggested that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications even where (i) the communications are conducted using company-owned systems and (ii) relevant company policies state that employees have no expectation of privacy in their workplace communications.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

California has introduced Assembly Bill 2244, proposing a pioneering “California Certified” labeling standard for foods not classified as ultra-processed. The bill relies on forthcoming regulatory definitions and imposes retail placement requirements for qualifying products. As California continues to advance UPF regulation, this initiative is expected to shape food law trends nationwide.

Time 1 Minute Read

As reported on the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives blog, SB 574 is a California bill that would set specific duties for attorneys who use generative artificial intelligence and would restrict how arbitrators may use such tools in decision-making.

Time 1 Minute Read

The California Consumer Privacy Act continues to drive significant enforcement activity—particularly when minors’ data is involved. In a recent action, the California Privacy Protection Agency imposed a $1.1 million fine on youth sports platform PlayOn Sports for alleged violations involving student data and inadequate opt-out mechanisms. The case highlights growing regulatory scrutiny around how companies collect, share, and provide transparency about personal information—especially when schools and students are involved. 

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page