Supreme Court of California Justia
Citation 47 Cal. 4th 272, 211 P.3d 1063, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274

Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc.

Filed 8/3/09

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

ABIGAIL HERNANDEZ et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
S147552
v.
Ct.App. 2/3 B183713
HILLSIDES, INC. et al.,
Los Angeles County
Defendants and Respondents. )
Super. Ct. No. GC032633

Defendants Hillsides, Inc., and Hillsides Children Center, Inc. (Hillsides)
operated a private nonprofit residential facility for neglected and abused children,
including the victims of sexual abuse. Plaintiffs Abigail Hernandez (Hernandez)
and Maria-Jose Lopez (Lopez) were employed by Hillsides. They shared an
enclosed office and performed clerical work during daytime business hours.
Defendant John M. Hitchcock (Hitchcock), the director of the facility, learned that
late at night, after plaintiffs had left the premises, an unknown person had
repeatedly used a computer in plaintiffs‟ office to access the Internet and view
pornographic Web sites. Such use conflicted with company policy and with
Hillsides‟ aim of providing a safe haven for the children.
Concerned that the culprit might be a staff member who worked with the
children, and without notifying plaintiffs, Hitchcock set up a hidden camera in
their office. The camera could be made operable from a remote location, at any
time of day or night, to permit either live viewing or videotaping of activities
1


around the targeted workstation. It is undisputed that the camera was not operated
for either of these purposes during business hours, and, as a consequence, that
plaintiffs‟ activities in the office were not viewed or recorded by means of the
surveillance system. Hitchcock did not expect or intend to catch plaintiffs on tape.
Nonetheless, after discovering the hidden camera in their office, plaintiffs
filed this tort action alleging, among other things, that defendants intruded into a
protected place, interest, or matter, and violated their right to privacy under both
the common law and the state Constitution. The trial court granted defendants‟
motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeal
reversed, finding triable issues that plaintiffs had suffered (1) an intrusion into a
protected zone of privacy that (2) was so unjustified and offensive as to constitute
a privacy violation.
Defendants argue here, as below, that, absent evidence they targeted and
either viewed or recorded plaintiffs as part of the surveillance scheme, there could
be, as a matter of law, no actionable invasion of privacy on an intrusion theory.
Hence, they insist, the Court of Appeal erred in reinstating that claim.
We agree with defendants that the trial court properly granted their motion
for summary judgment. However, we reach this conclusion for reasons more
varied and nuanced than those offered by defendants.
On the one hand, the Court of Appeal did not err in determining that a jury
could find the requisite intrusion. While plaintiffs‟ privacy interests in a shared
office at work were far from absolute, they had a reasonable expectation under
widely held social norms that their employer would not install video equipment
capable of monitoring and recording their activities — personal and work related
— behind closed doors without their knowledge or consent.
On the other hand, the Court of Appeal erroneously found a triable issue as
to whether such intrusion was highly offensive and sufficiently serious to
2
constitute a privacy violation. Any actual surveillance was drastically limited in
nature and scope, exempting plaintiffs from its reach. Defendants also were
motivated by strong countervailing concerns. We therefore will reverse the Court
of Appeal‟s judgment insofar as it allowed the privacy claim to proceed to trial.
FACTS
In September 2003, plaintiffs Hernandez and Lopez filed this suit against
defendants Hillsides and Hitchcock over the use of video surveillance equipment
in plaintiffs‟ office. The complaint set forth three related causes of action in tort,
and sought compensatory and punitive damages. The first cause of action alleged
an invasion of privacy, alluding to principles and authorities under both the
common law (see Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 200
(Shulman)) and the state Constitution (see Cal. Const., art 1, § 1; Hill v. National
Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 (Hill)). The other two claims alleged
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
In December 2004, after the parties engaged in discovery, defendants
moved for summary judgment. The motion attached numerous supporting
documents. They included the declarations of both defendant Hitchcock and Tom
Foster (Foster), the computer specialist at Hillsides, and excerpts from the
depositions of Hitchcock and plaintiffs Hernandez and Lopez. In opposing
summary judgment, plaintiffs submitted additional excerpts from the same
depositions, as well as declarations each of them had prepared. Based on these
submissions, the following facts appear to be essentially undisputed.
Hillsides was established in 1913, and is affiliated with the Episcopal
Church. First operated as an orphanage, Hillsides later became a residential
treatment center for children, ranging in age from six to 18. At the time of the
events herein, 66 boys and girls lived at its facility in Pasadena.
3
Typically, before entering Hillsides, the children had lived in foster homes
and had been the victims of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. Such abuse
included exposure to and participation in pornography. Working in conjunction
with child welfare authorities, Hillsides offered programs to assist residents with
academic, psychological, and behavioral problems.
The campus consisted of 12 buildings — five that housed the children, and
seven that were used for administrative, academic, and other purposes. The
grounds were open to the public, but certain security measures were in place. For
instance, Hillsides required employees to carry photo identification at work, and
issued temporary badges to all visitors. Any visitor caught wandering on the
grounds without a badge was directed or escorted to the receptionist at the main
entrance of the facility. The residence halls were locked at all times. Other
buildings were unlocked only during regular daytime business hours. Alarms
sounded for any unauthorized entry.
In addition, security personnel, or “program directors,” patrolled the
premises. They worked every day, around the clock, with more of them on duty
during the day than at night. The program directors also monitored televised
images transmitted from four cameras stationed outside some of the buildings.
These exterior cameras captured and recorded certain views of the parking lot, the
administration building, and the main entrance of the facility, where visitors
entered. No similar camera system was permanently installed inside any building.
Plaintiffs Hernandez and Lopez performed clerical work during daytime
business hours at Hillsides. When they were hired in 1996 and 1999, respectively,
they signed disclosure statements and underwent background screening procedures
required by law of persons working at licensed child care facilities. This process
included fingerprint and criminal record checks, and an agreement to report any
child abuse witnessed or suspected while working at Hillsides.
4
Beginning in 2001, plaintiffs shared an office in the administrative building
at Hillsides. Each woman had her own desk and computer workstation. The
office had three windows on 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 plaintiffs, had keys to
their office: five administrators, including Hitchcock, and all of the program
directors. Hernandez estimated that there were five program directors. Hitchcock
counted eight of them.
According to plaintiffs, they occasionally 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.
On or before August 22, 2002, Hillsides circulated an “E-Mail, Voicemail
and Computer Systems Policy.” This document stated that it was intended to
prevent employees from using Hillsides‟ 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 “[p]ersonal 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 Hillsides‟ property,
5
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.”1
Plaintiffs acknowledged the existence of the foregoing policy in their
depositions. Indeed, both testified that, as employees of Hillsides, they were not
allowed to access pornographic Web sites from their computers at work. They
indicated that such conduct would conflict with Hillsides‟ mission to provide a
safe environment for the abused and vulnerable children in its care. Hernandez
described such conduct as “wrong,” “illegal,” and “unethical.” Lopez agreed with
this assessment.
In order to ensure compliance with Hillsides‟ computer policy and
restrictions, Foster, the computer specialist, could retrieve and print a list of all
Internet Web sites accessed from every computer on the premises. The network
server that recorded and stored such information could pinpoint exactly when and
where such Web access had occurred. In July 2002, Foster determined that
numerous pornographic Web sites had been viewed in the late-night and early-
morning hours from at least two different computers. One of them was located in

1
On November 5, 2002, shortly after the events herein occurred, Hitchcock
circulated a one-page memorandum reminding staff that they could not use
Hillsides‟ computers or Internet services to view or access any sexually explicit or
offensive material or Web site. The memorandum further stated that the network
could be made to monitor Internet use, and that unspecified “surveillance devices”
could be placed wherever inappropriate computer use occurred. Attached to the
memorandum was a two-page document dated November 4, 2002, entitled
“Communications Acceptable Use Policy.” Like its predecessor, the new policy
sought to address “possible legal issues” by providing that data stored on
Hillsides‟ computers remained company property, that password protections were
required, that Hillsides could monitor the computer network at any time, and that
use of its equipment to view or access sexually explicit or offensive materials or
Web sites was prohibited.
6


the computer laboratory, or classroom. The other one sat on the desk Lopez used
in the office she shared with Hernandez.
The evidence indicated that Lopez‟s computer could have been accessed
after hours by someone other than her, because she did not always log off before
going home at night. Hitchcock explained in his deposition that employees were
expected to turn off their computers when leaving work at the end of the day, that
a personal password was required to log onto the computer again after it had been
turned off, and that this policy was communicated orally to employees when their
computers were first assigned. He admitted that he did not remind plaintiffs of
this procedure before taking the surveillance steps at issue here. Nonetheless,
Lopez noted in her declaration that “[o]nce [her] computer at Hillsides was turned
off, it required the input of a secret password in order to be accessed again.”
Foster told defendant Hitchcock about the inappropriate Internet use, and
showed him printouts listing the pornographic Web sites that had been accessed.
Given the odd hours at which such activity had occurred, Hitchcock surmised that
the perpetrator was a program director or other staff person who had unfettered
access to Hillsides in the middle of the night. Hitchcock did not blame any of the
children, because they would have been under supervision and asleep in the
residence halls at the time. Nor did he suspect plaintiffs. They typically were
gone from the premises when the impermissible nighttime computer use occurred.
In light of these circumstances, Hitchcock decided to use video equipment
Hillsides already had in its possession to record the perpetrator in the act of using
the computers at night. He told other administrators about the problem and his
surveillance plan. Hitchcock explained in both his deposition and declaration that
7
he sought to protect the children from any staff person who might expose them to
pornography, emphasizing the harm they had endured before entering Hillsides.2
With Foster‟s assistance, Hitchcock initially installed the video equipment
in the computer laboratory from which some of the pornographic Web sites had
been accessed. However, because so many people used the laboratory for
legitimate reasons during and after business hours, Hitchcock decided instead to
conduct surveillance in the office that plaintiffs shared. He did not inform
plaintiffs of this decision. He reasoned that the more people who knew and
“gossiped” about the plan, the greater the chance the culprit would hear about it
and never be identified or stopped.
Hence, at some point during the first week of October 2002, Hitchcock and
Foster installed video recording equipment in plaintiffs‟ office and in a storage
room nearby. First, in plaintiffs‟ office, they positioned a camera on the top shelf

2
Plaintiffs claim defendants never established that an unidentified employee
or other intruder accessed pornographic Web sites from Lopez‟s computer,
thereby risking harm to Hillsides‟ residents or operations. Plaintiffs assume that
declarations filed by Hitchcock and Foster containing such factual assertions are
incompetent and inadmissible on numerous grounds, and that no other similar
evidence exists. We reject the argument and its premise. Plaintiffs do not make
clear through an analysis of the pleadings below, or specific record citations,
whether the present evidentiary objections are the same as those made and
overruled in the trial court. In the summary judgment context, we have declined
similar requests to disregard evidence based on objections “in this court lack[ing]
adequate argument and support.” (Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television
Productions
(2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 277, fn. 3.) In any event, the substance of the
information contained in the challenged declarations appears in Hitchcock‟s
deposition. As best we can determine from the record, plaintiffs never contested
such deposition testimony in the trial court. Their failure to do so prevents them
from complaining about the admission of the evidence in deposition form. (E.g.,
Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 452, fn. 3; see Code
Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (b)(5) & (d) [evidentiary objections not made at
summary judgment hearing are waived].)
8


of a bookcase, among some plants, where it apparently was obscured from view.
They also tucked a motion detector into the lap of a stuffed animal or toy sitting on
a lower shelf of the same bookcase. Second, these devices connected remotely to
a television that Hitchcock and Foster moved into the storage room. A
videocassette recorder was built into the unit. The television had a 19-inch
monitor on which images could be viewed.
Hitchcock explained the system‟s operation in his deposition as follows:
Through wireless technology, the camera broadcast images to the television
monitor, and the motion detector operated the videocassette recorder. The
recorder would “run as long as there [was] motion in that room to keep it
activated.” Once installed in plaintiffs‟ office, both the camera and the motion
detector were always plugged into the electrical system, and therefore were
capable of operating “all the time.” However, in order for the camera to display
an image on the monitor, and for the motion detector to trigger a recording of that
image, a wireless “receptive device” in the storage room needed to be plugged into
— i.e., “connected” and “engaged” to — the television set. Hitchcock further
testified that if these wireless receptors were unplugged, disconnected, or
disengaged, then the camera and motion detector were not “activated,” and
nothing was displayed or recorded on the television equipment.
Hitchcock was not the only person with access to the storage room and the
video surveillance equipment inside. Plaintiffs each stated in their declarations
that “several supervisory employees and program directors had keys and access to
that storage room.” Hitchcock stated in his deposition that he knew of only two
employees with keys to the storage room, Susanne Crummey and Ramona McGee,
and that the location was locked and “secure.” Crummey and another
administrator, Stacey Brake, were the only people other than Hitchcock and Foster
9
who knew that the video equipment in the storage room was specifically set up to
monitor plaintiffs‟ office.
Hitchcock rarely activated the camera and motion detector in plaintiffs‟
office, and never did so while they were there. His deposition testimony
addressed these circumstances as follows: On three occasions, Hitchcock
connected the wireless receptors to the television in the storage room after
plaintiffs left work for the day, and then disconnected the receptors the next
morning, before plaintiffs returned to work. On one such morning, he also
removed the camera from the office, and returned it later, when plaintiffs were
gone for the night. In short, the camera and motion detector were always disabled
during the workday, such that “there was no picture showing” and “no recording
going on” while plaintiffs were in their office. Hitchcock further stated that
between installation of the equipment in early October 2002, and his decision to
remove it three weeks later, no one was videotaped or caught using the computer
in plaintiffs‟ office. He assumed that the culprit had learned about the camera and
stopped engaging in unauthorized activity.3

3
Plaintiffs insist here, as on appeal, that triable issues exist as to whether
they were viewed or recorded because (1) the video surveillance equipment was
“always on,” (2) the television monitor in the storage room displayed a
“continuous” live image of the interior of plaintiffs‟ office, and (3) “recording was
possible” even when nothing triggered the motion detector. However, Hitchcock‟s
deposition defeats these assertions, and plaintiffs presented no contrary evidence
below. As we have seen, Hitchcock testified that no image was displayed or
recorded on the television unless the remote controls in the storage room were
connected, and that he connected them and activated the surveillance system only
three times, at night, when plaintiffs were not at work. He also stated that no
recording occurred unless movement was first sensed by the motion detector in its
activated state, and that neither plaintiffs nor any third person appeared on the
videotape. Indeed, the Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion concerning
the undisputed nature of Hitchcock‟s testimony about the “recording and/or

(footnote continued on next page)
10


Meanwhile, about 4:30 p.m. on Friday, October 25, 2002, plaintiffs
discovered the video equipment in their office. A red light on the motion detector
flashed at the time. The cord attached to the camera was plugged into the wall and
was hot to the touch.
Shocked by the discovery, plaintiffs immediately reported it to two
supervisors, Sylvia Levitan and Toni Aikins. Levitan called Hitchcock, who was
at home. A program director helped remove the camera from plaintiffs‟ office and
lock it in Levitan‟s office for safekeeping.
A short time later, Hitchcock called Hernandez in her office. He
apologized for installing the camera, and said the surveillance was not aimed at
plaintiffs, but at an intruder who had used Lopez‟s computer to access
inappropriate Web sites. Hernandez expressed concern that she was videotaped
while changing her clothes or that “personal stuff” in her office was somehow
disturbed. Hitchcock replied by assuring Hernandez that “the only time we
activated that camera and the video recorder was after you left at night and [we]
deactivated the two devices before you came to work in the morning. [¶] . . . [A]t
no time did [we] ever capture [you] or [Lopez] on the tape.” During this
conversation, Hitchcock asked to speak with Lopez, but learned she had left the
office for the day. Hitchcock twice tried contacting Lopez over the next two days,
which fell on a weekend, but did not reach her.

(footnote continued from previous page)

viewing” of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not seek rehearing or modification on this or
any other factual point, and are barred from complaining about it now. (See Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.500(c)(2) [Court of Appeal‟s statement of facts is accepted
on review absent rehearing petition challenging alleged misstatements].)
11


Plaintiffs did not return to work until Wednesday, October 30, 2002. That
morning, they met for 30 minutes with both defendant Hitchcock and Aikins, their
supervisor. Hitchcock essentially repeated the substance of his prior conversation
with Hernandez. He apologized and explained the reason for installing the camera
in plaintiffs‟ office, and assured them that they were not the target of the
surveillance and had not been videotaped.
During this meeting, Lopez asked to see the surveillance videotape.
Hitchcock agreed. The group went to Hitchcock‟s office and watched the tape on
his television set. According to the depositions of both plaintiffs, there was not
much to see. No one appeared on the tape except for Hitchcock, who was briefly
seen setting up the camera and moving around inside plaintiffs‟ office. The only
other recorded images were of Lopez‟s empty desk and computer, the surrounding
work area, some closets, and the entrance to the office. No sound accompanied
the playing of the tape. Hitchcock never indicated to plaintiffs that any audio
recording was made, or that the camera could record sound.4
Based on the foregoing facts, the trial court found no triable issue as to any
cause of action stated in the complaint, granted summary judgment in defendants‟
favor, and dismissed the action. The court agreed with defendants that there had
been no intrusion on plaintiffs‟ reasonable expectations of privacy. In this regard,
the court emphasized the lack of evidence that plaintiffs “were secretly observed
or recorded by way of a hidden camera located in their office. . . . [I]t is
undisputed that the camera was only connected to a video monitor and to

4
This court has reviewed a copy of the videotape provided by plaintiffs‟
counsel, which conforms to the parties‟ descriptions in the trial court. As to the
camera, Lopez remarked in her deposition that, based on her own Internet
research, Hitchcock‟s model had an audio recording feature. She did not
otherwise describe the camera or explain her conclusion.
12


recording equipment on three occasions, all of which occurred after working hours
when Plaintiffs were not present.” Alternatively, the trial court concluded that any
privacy expectations plaintiffs had in their joint office were “diminished,” and
were “overcome by Defendants‟ right to a safe environment for its children.”
The Court of Appeal reversed as to the invasion-of-privacy count. Critical
to the court‟s analysis on appeal was the placement in plaintiffs‟ office of a
functioning hidden camera, capable of transmitting images that could be viewed or
recorded by anyone who had access to the storage room and who activated the
wireless remote controls. According to the appellate court, plaintiffs 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. For similar reasons, and
even assuming defendants were merely trying to stop an intruder‟s inappropriate
use of the computers at night, the Court of Appeal concluded that defendants‟
conduct was highly offensive. However, for reasons not challenged or relevant
here, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that plaintiffs had not
presented triable claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress, and that such counts should be dismissed.
Defendants petitioned for review on the ground the Court of Appeal erred
in not affirming the judgment in its entirety and reversing the trial court‟s
dismissal of the invasion-of-privacy count. We granted review.5

5
We note that the Employers Group and the California Employment Law
Council have jointly filed a brief as amici curiae in support of defendant Hillsides.

13


DISCUSSION
A. Summary Judgment Rules
A grant of summary judgment is proper where it appears no triable issues
of material fact exist, and judgment is warranted as a matter of law. (Code of Civ.
Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Miller v. Department of Corrections, supra, 36 Cal.4th
446, 460.) As the moving party, the defendant must show that the plaintiff “has
not established, and cannot reasonably expect to establish, a prima facie case” on
one or more elements of the cause of action. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768; accord, Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42
Cal.4th 713, 720.) The reviewing court independently examines the record and
considers all of the evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers except
that as to which objections have been made and sustained. (Lyle v. Warner
Brothers Television Productions, supra, 38 Cal.4th 264, 274; Guz v. Bechtel
National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334; see id. at p. 335, fn. 7.)
B. General Privacy Principles
Defendants (joined by their amici curiae) argue here, as below, that they did
nothing wrong in attempting to videotape a nighttime intruder using the computer
in plaintiffs‟ office, because no private information about plaintiffs was obtained.
Defendants insist that plaintiffs, not being the intended targets of the surveillance
plan, were never viewed or recorded, and thereby suffered no serious or actionable
intrusion into their private domain. Plaintiffs disagree and urge us to adopt the
Court of Appeal‟s approach in the present case. They insist that defendants were
able to view and record plaintiffs at will, without their knowledge or consent, and
unjustifiably deprived them of the privacy they reasonably expected to have while
working behind closed doors in their shared office.
The foregoing arguments have been framed throughout this action in terms
of both the common law and the state Constitution. These two sources of privacy
14
protection “are not unrelated” under California law. (Shulman, supra, 18 Cal.4th
200, 227; accord, Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 27; but see Katzberg v. Regents of
University of California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300, 313, fn. 13 [suggesting it is an
open question whether the state constitutional privacy provision, which is
otherwise self-executing and serves as the basis for injunctive relief, can also
provide direct and sole support for a damages claim].) Such privacy principles
provide the framework for our analysis, as follows.
A privacy violation based on the common law tort of intrusion has two
elements. First, the defendant must intentionally intrude into a place,
conversation, or matter as to which the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of
privacy. Second, the intrusion must occur in a manner highly offensive to a
reasonable person. (Shulman, supra, 18 Cal.4th 200, 231, approving and
following Rest.2d Torts, § 652B; Miller v. National Broadcasting Co. (1986) 187
Cal.App.3d 1463, 1482 (Miller); accord, Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683,
724-725, 731 (Taus).) These limitations on the right to privacy are not
insignificant. (Miller, supra, at p. 1482.) Nonetheless, the cause of action
recognizes a measure of personal control over the individual‟s autonomy, dignity,
and serenity. (Shulman, supra, at p. 231.) The gravamen is the mental anguish
sustained when both conditions of liability exist. (Miller, supra, pp. 1484-1485.)
As to the first element of the common law tort, the defendant must have
“penetrated some zone of physical or sensory privacy . . . or obtained unwanted
access to data” by electronic or other covert means, in violation of the law or
social norms. (Shulman, supra, 18 Cal.4th 200, 232; see id. at pp. 230-231.) In
either instance, the expectation of privacy must be “objectively reasonable.” (Id.
at p. 232.) In Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies (1999) 20 Cal.4th
907 (Sanders), a leading case on workplace privacy that we discuss further below,
this court linked the reasonableness of privacy expectations to such factors as (1)
15
the identity of the intruder, (2) the extent to which other persons had access to the
subject place, and could see or hear the plaintiff, and (3) the means by which the
intrusion occurred. (Id. at p. 923; see Shulman, supra, 18 Cal.4th 200, 233-235.)
The second common law element essentially involves a “policy”
determination as to whether the alleged intrusion is “highly offensive” under the
particular circumstances. (Taus, supra, 40 Cal.4th 683, 737.) Relevant factors
include the degree and setting of the intrusion, and the intruder‟s motives and
objectives. (Shulman, supra, 18 Cal.4th 200, 236; Miller, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d
1463, 1483-1484.) Even in cases involving the use of photographic and electronic
recording devices, which can raise difficult questions about covert surveillance,
“California tort law provides no bright line on [„offensiveness‟]; each case must be
taken on its facts.” (Shulman, supra, at p. 237.)
The right to privacy in the California Constitution sets standards similar to
the common law tort of intrusion. (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 27.)6 Under this
provision, which creates at least a limited right of action against both private and
government entities (id. at p. 20), the plaintiff must meet several requirements.
First, he must possess a legally protected privacy interest. (Hill, supra, 7
Cal.4th 1, 35.) These interests include “conducting personal activities without
observation, intrusion, or interference” (ibid.), as determined by “established
social norms” derived from such sources as the “common law” and “statutory
enactment.” (Id. at p. 36.) Second, the plaintiff‟s expectations of privacy must be
reasonable. This element rests on an examination of “customs, practices, and

6
Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution states: “All people are by
nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are
enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting
property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”
16


physical settings surrounding particular activities” (ibid.), as well as the
opportunity to be notified in advance and consent to the intrusion. (Id. at pp. 36-
37.) Third, the plaintiff must show that the intrusion is so serious in “nature,
scope, and actual or potential impact as to constitute an egregious breach of the
social norms.” (Id. at p. 37; accord, Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (2009)
45 Cal.4th 992, 998 (Sheehan); Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court
(2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370-371 (Pioneer).)
Hill and its progeny further provide that no constitutional violation occurs,
i.e., a “defense” exists, if the intrusion on privacy is justified by one or more
competing interests. (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 38.) For purposes of this balancing
function — and except in the rare case in which a “fundamental” right of personal
autonomy is involved — the defendant need not present a “ „compelling‟ ”
countervailing interest; only “general balancing tests are employed.” (Id. at p. 34.)
To the extent the plaintiff raises the issue in response to a claim or defense of
competing interests, the defendant may show that less intrusive alternative means
were not reasonably available. (Id. at p. 38.) A relevant inquiry in this regard is
whether the intrusion was limited, such that no confidential information was
gathered or disclosed. (Ibid.; accord, Sheehan, supra, 45 Cal.4th 992, 998-999;
Pioneer, supra, 40 Cal.4th 360, 371.)
In light of the foregoing, we will assess the parties‟ claims and the
undisputed evidence under the rubric of both the common law and constitutional
tests for establishing a privacy violation. Borrowing certain shorthand language
from Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, which distilled the largely parallel elements of these
two causes of action, we consider (1) the nature of any intrusion upon reasonable
expectations of privacy, and (2) the offensiveness or seriousness of the intrusion,
including any justification and other relevant interests. (Id. at pp. 27, 34.)
17
C. Intrusion upon Reasonable Privacy Expectations
For reasons we now explain, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that the
Court of Appeal erred in finding a prima facie case on the threshold question
whether defendants‟ video surveillance measures intruded upon plaintiffs‟
reasonable expectations of privacy. Plaintiffs plausibly maintain that defendants
cannot prevail on this element of the cause of action simply because they “never
intended to view or record” plaintiffs, or because defendants did not “capture
[plaintiffs‟] images at all.” Other significant factors not considered by defendants
point favorably in plaintiffs‟ direction on this issue.
Our analysis starts from the premise that, while privacy expectations may
be significantly diminished in the workplace, they are not lacking altogether. In
Sanders, supra, 20 Cal.4th 907, a reporter working undercover for a national
broadcasting company obtained employment alongside the plaintiff as a
telepsychic, giving “readings” to customers over the phone. The reporter then
secretly videotaped and recorded interactions with the plaintiff and other psychics
using a small camera hidden in her hat and a microphone attached to her brassiere.
The taping occurred in a large room containing 100 cubicles that were open on one
side and on top, and from which coworkers could be seen and heard nearby.
Visitors could not enter this area without permission from the front desk.
Ultimately, the plaintiff sued the reporter and the broadcasting company for
violating his privacy after one of his secretly taped conversations aired on
television. A jury verdict in the plaintiff‟s favor was reversed on appeal. The
appellate court concluded that the plaintiff could not reasonably expect that
actions and statements witnessed by coworkers would remain private and not be
disclosed to third parties. (Id. at pp. 911-913 & fn. 1.)
Relying on the elements of the intrusion tort set forth in Shulman, supra, 18
Cal.4th 200, we disagreed with the Court of Appeal in Sanders, and reversed the
18
judgment. This court emphasized that privacy expectations can be reasonable
even if they are not absolute. “[P]rivacy, for purposes of the intrusion tort, is not a
binary, all-or-nothing characteristic. There are degrees and nuances to societal
recognition of our expectations of privacy: the fact that the privacy one expects in
a given setting is not complete or absolute does not render the expectation
unreasonable as a matter of law.” (Sanders, supra, 20 Cal.4th 907, 916.)
In adopting this refined approach, Sanders highlighted various factors
which, either singly or in combination, affect societal expectations of privacy.
One factor was the identity of the intruder. (Sanders, supra, 20 Cal.4th 907, 918,
923.) We noted that the plaintiff in that case, and other employees, were
deliberately misled into believing that the defendant reporter was a colleague, and
had no reason to suspect she worked undercover to secretly tape their interactions
for use in a national television program. (Id. at p. 921.)
Also relevant in Sanders, supra, 20 Cal.4th 907, was the nature of the
intrusion (id. at p. 918), meaning, both the extent to which the subject interaction
could be “seen and overheard” and the “means of intrusion.” (Id. at p. 923.)
These factors weighed heavily in the plaintiff‟s favor: “[T]he possibility of being
overheard by coworkers does not, as a matter of law, render unreasonable an
employee‟s expectation that his or her interactions within a nonpublic workplace
will not be videotaped in secret by a journalist.” (Ibid.) We distinguished the
situation in which “the workplace is regularly open to entry or observation by the
public or press,” or the subject interaction occurred between either the proprietor
or employee of a business and a “customer” who walks in from the street. (Ibid.)
The present case, of course, does not involve an imposter or “stranger to the
workplace” who surreptitiously recorded and videotaped conversations that were
later published without the speaker‟s consent. (Sanders, supra, 20 Cal.4th 907,
918.) Nor does it involve commercial interactions between the representatives of
19
a business and its customers or other members of the public. Rather, defendants
represent a private employer accused of installing electronic equipment that gave it
the capacity to secretly watch and record employee activities behind closed doors
in an office to which the general public had limited access. As we discuss later
with respect to the “offensiveness” element of plaintiffs‟ claim, an employer may
have sound reasons for monitoring the workplace, and an intrusion upon the
employee‟s reasonable privacy expectations may not be egregious or actionable
under the particular circumstances. However, on the threshold question whether
such expectations were infringed, decisional law suggests that is the case here.
Consistent with Sanders, supra, 20 Cal.4th 907, 922, which asks whether
the employee could be “overheard or observed” by others when the tortious act
allegedly occurred, courts have examined the physical layout of the area intruded
upon, its relationship to the workplace as a whole, and the nature of the activities
commonly performed in such places. At one end of the spectrum are settings in
which work or business is conducted in an open and accessible space, within the
sight and hearing not only of coworkers and supervisors, but also of customers,
visitors, and the general public. (See Wilkins v. National Broadcasting Co. (1999)
71 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1072-1073, 1078 [holding for purpose of common law
intrusion tort that businessmen lacked privacy in lunch meeting secretly
videotaped on crowded outdoor patio of public restaurant]; see also Acosta v. Scott
Labor LLC (N.D.Ill. 2005) 377 F.Supp.2d 647, 649, 652 [similar conclusion as to
employer secretly videotaped by disgruntled employee in common, open, and
exposed area of workplace]; Melder v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. (La.Ct.App. 1999)
731 So.2d 991, 994, 1001 [similar conclusion as to department store employee
captured on video cameras used to monitor customers as they shopped].)
At the other end of the spectrum are areas in the workplace subject to
restricted access and limited view, and reserved exclusively for performing bodily
20
functions or other inherently personal acts. (See Trujillo v. City of Ontario
(C.D.Cal. 2006) 428 F.Supp.2d 1094, 1099-1100, 1103, 1119-1122 (Trujillo)
[recognizing that employees have common law and constitutional privacy interests
while using locker room in basement of police station, and can reasonably expect
that employer will not intrude by secretly videotaping them as they undress]; see
also Doe by Doe v. B.P.S. Guard Services, Inc. (8th Cir. 1991) 945 F.2d 1422,
1424, 1427 (Doe) [similar conclusion as to models who were secretly viewed and
videotaped while changing clothes behind curtained area at fashion show]; Liberti
v. Walt Disney World Co. (M.D.Fla. 1995) 912 F.Supp. 1494, 1499, 1506 (Liberti)
[similar conclusion as to dancers who were secretly viewed and videotaped while
changing clothes and using restroom in dressing room at work].)
The present scenario falls between these extremes. (Cf. Sacramento
County Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn. v. County of Sacramento (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th
1468, 1482, 1487 [rejecting common law intrusion claim of jail employee secretly
videotaped while handling inmate property based on accessibility of his office to
others and heightened security concerns inherent in custodial setting]; see also
Marrs v. Marriott Corp. (D.Md. 1992) 830 F.Supp. 274, 283 [similar conclusion
as to security guard secretly videotaped while breaking into colleague‟s locked
desk in open office used as common area by entire staff].)
Plaintiffs plausibly claim that Hillsides provided an enclosed office with a
door that could be shut and locked, and window blinds that could be drawn, to
allow the occupants to obtain some measure of refuge, to focus on their work, and
to escape visual and aural interruptions from other sources, including their
employer. Such a protective setting generates legitimate expectations that not all
activities performed behind closed doors would be clerical and work related. As
suggested by the evidence here, employees who share an office, and who have
four walls that shield them from outside view (albeit, with a broken “doggie” flap
21
on the door), may perform grooming or hygiene activities, or conduct personal
conversations, during the workday. Privacy is not wholly lacking because the
occupants of an office can see one another, or because colleagues, supervisors,
visitors, and security and maintenance personnel have varying degrees of access.
(See Sanders, supra, 20 Cal.4th 907, 917 [“ „visibility to some people does not
strip [away] the right to remain secluded from others‟ ”]; id. at pp. 918-919
[“ „business office need not be sealed to offer its occupant a reasonable degree of
privacy‟ ”].)
Regarding another relevant factor in Sanders, supra, 20 Cal.4th 907, 923,
the “means of intrusion,” employees who retreat into a shared or solo office, and
who perform work and personal activities in relative seclusion there, would not
reasonably expect to be the subject of televised spying and secret filming by their
employer. As noted, in assessing social norms in this regard, we may look at both
the “common law” and “statutory enactment.” (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 36.)
Courts have acknowledged the intrusive effect for tort purposes of hidden
cameras and video recorders in settings that otherwise seem private. It has been
said that the “unblinking lens” can be more penetrating than the naked eye with
respect to “duration, proximity, focus, and vantage point.” (Cowles v. State
(Alaska 2001) 23 P.3d 1168, 1182 (dis. opn. of Fabe, J.).) Such monitoring and
recording denies the actor a key feature of privacy — the right to control the
dissemination of his image and actions. (See Shulman, supra, 18 Cal.4th 200,
235.) We have made clear that the “ „mere fact that a person can be seen by
someone does not automatically mean that he or she can legally be forced to be
subject to being seen by everyone.‟ ” (Sanders, supra, 20 Cal.4th 907, 916.)
Not surprisingly, we discern a similar legislative policy against covert
monitoring and recording that intrudes — or threatens to intrude — upon visual
privacy. Some statutes criminalize the use of camcorders, motion picture cameras,
22
or photographic cameras to violate reasonable expectations of privacy in specified
areas in which persons commonly undress or perform other intimate acts.
Liability exists, under certain circumstances, where the lens allows the intruder to
“look[ ]” into or “view[ ]” the protected area. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (j)(1).)7
Of course, the intruder also cannot “secretly videotape, film, photograph, or
record” anyone in that private place where various conditions exist. (Id., subd.
(j)(3)(A); see Trujillo, supra, 428 F.Supp.2d 1094, 1119 [statute intended to
protect visual privacy of persons in various states of undress].)
Other statutes authorize civil damages for certain invasions of privacy that
involve either a physical trespass or other offensive conduct for the purpose of
capturing a picture of someone engaged in personal or familial activities. The
focus of such provisions is on the “intent to capture” a “visual image” (Civ. Code,

7
Penal Code section 647 imposes misdemeanor liability for disorderly
conduct. Its diverse provisions include subdivision (j)(1), which applies to “[a]ny
person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of
any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope,
binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, or camcorder, the interior of a
bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning
booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable
expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons
inside.”
Subdivision (j)(3)(A) of Penal Code section 647 applies to “[a]ny person
who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera
of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means,
another, identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress, for the
purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person,
without the consent or knowledge of that other person, in the interior of a
bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning
booth, or the interior of any other area in which that other person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person.”
23


§ 1708.8, subd. (a)), or on the “attempt” to do so. (Id., subd. (b).)8 Failure to
capture or record the subject image is no defense to a statutory violation in this
context. (Id., subd. (j); see Richardson-Tunnell v. Schools Ins. Program for
Employees (SIPE) (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1063 [statute protects against
aggressive, paparazzi-like, behavior of tabloid journalists].)
As emphasized by defendants, the evidence shows that Hitchcock never
viewed or recorded plaintiffs inside their office by means of the equipment he
installed both there and in the storage room. He also did not intend or attempt to
do so, and took steps to avoid capturing them on camera and videotape. While
such factors bear on the offensiveness of the challenged conduct, as discussed
below, we reject the defense suggestion that they preclude us from finding the

8
Civil Code section 1708.8 authorizes compensatory and punitive damages
and injunctive relief for acts constituting a physical or constructive invasion of
privacy. Subdivision (a) states: “A person is liable for physical invasion of
privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person
without permission or otherwise committed a trespass in order to physically
invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual
image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a
personal or familial activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is
offensive to a reasonable person.”
Subdivision (b) of Civil Code section 1708.8 states: “A person is liable for
constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a
manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound
recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or
familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable
expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device,
regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording,
or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass
unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used.”
Subdivision (j) of Civil Code section 1708.8 states: “It is not a defense to a
violation of this section that no image, recording, or physical impression was
captured or sold.”
24


requisite intrusion in the first place. (See Shulman, supra, 18 Cal.4th 200, 232
[requiring either a physical or sensory penetration into a private place or matter, or
the gaining of unwanted access to private information].)
In particular, Hitchcock hid the video equipment in plaintiffs‟ office from
view in an apparent attempt to prevent anyone from discovering, avoiding, or
dismantling it. He used a camera and motion detector small enough to tuck inside
and around decorative items perched on different bookshelves, both high and low.
Plaintiffs presumably would have been caught in the camera‟s sights if they had
returned to work after hours, or if Hitchcock had been mistaken about them having
left the office when he activated the system. Additionally, except for the one day
in which Hitchcock removed the camera from plaintiffs‟ office, the means to
activate the monitoring and recording functions were available around the clock,
for three weeks, to anyone who had access to the storage room. Assuming the
storage room was locked, as many as eight to 11 employees had keys under
plaintiffs‟ version of the facts (depending upon the total number of program
directors at Hillsides).
In a related vein, plaintiffs cannot plausibly be found to have received
warning that they would be subjected to the risk of such surveillance, or to have
agreed to it in advance. We have said that notice of and consent to an impending
intrusion can “inhibit reasonable expectations of privacy.” (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th
1, 36; accord, Sheehan, supra, 45 Cal.4th 992, 1000-1001.) Such factors also can
“ „ “limit [an] intrusion upon personal dignity” ‟ ” by providing an opportunity for
persons to regulate their conduct while being monitored. (Hill, supra, at p. 36.)
Here, however, the evidence shows that no one at Hillsides told plaintiffs that
someone had used Lopez‟s computer to access pornographic Web sites. Nor were
they told that Hitchcock planned to install surveillance equipment inside their
office to catch the perpetrator on television and videotape.
25
Moreover, nothing in Hillsides‟ written computer policy mentioned or even
alluded to the latter scenario. As noted earlier, the version in effect at the relevant
time made clear that any monitoring and recording of employee activity, and any
resulting diminution in reasonable privacy expectations, were limited to “use of
Company computers” in the form of “e-mail” messages, electronic “files,” and
“web site” data. Foster performed this administrative function when he used the
network server to produce the list of pornographic Web sites accessed in both the
computer laboratory and Lopez‟s office, and showed such computer-generated
data to Hitchcock. There is no evidence that employees like plaintiffs had any
indication that Hillsides would take the next drastic step and use cameras and
recording devices to view and videotape employees sitting at their desks and
computer workstations, or moving around their offices within camera range.
In sum, the undisputed evidence seems clearly to support the first of two
basic elements we have identified as necessary to establish a violation of privacy
as alleged in plaintiffs‟ complaint. Defendants secretly installed a hidden video
camera that was both operable and operating (electricity-wise), and that could be
made to monitor and record activities inside plaintiffs‟ office, at will, by anyone
who plugged in the receptors, and who had access to the remote location in which
both the receptors and recording equipment were located. The workplace policy,
that by means within the computer system itself, plaintiffs would be monitored
about the pattern and use of Web sites visited, to prevent abuse of Hillsides‟
computer system, is distinguishable from and does not necessarily create a social
norm that in order to advance that same interest, a camera would be placed inside
their office, and would be aimed toward a computer workstation to capture all
26
human activity occurring there. Plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation that their
employer would intrude so tangibly into their semi-private office.9
D. Offensiveness/Seriousness of the Privacy Intrusion
Plaintiffs must show more than an intrusion upon reasonable privacy
expectations. Actionable invasions of privacy also must be “highly offensive” to a
reasonable person (Shulman, supra, 18 Cal.4th 200, 231; see id. at p. 236), and
“sufficiently serious” and unwarranted as to constitute an “egregious breach of the
social norms.” (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 37.) Defendants claim that, in finding a
triable issue in this regard, the Court of Appeal focused too narrowly on the mere

9
In our analysis, we have sidestepped cases involving claims that searches
by governmental agents and employers for evidence of misconduct or criminality
in the workplace violate an employee‟s reasonable expectations of privacy under
the Fourth Amendment of the federal Constitution. (See O’Connor v. Ortega
(1987) 480 U.S. 709, 714-719 (plur. opn. of O‟Connor, J.); id. at pp. 730-731
(conc. opn. of Scalia, J.); id. at pp. 732 (dis. opn. of Blackmun, J.); Mancusi v.
DeForte
(1968) 392 U.S. 364, 369.) Recognizing the special concerns involved in
defining a private citizen‟s protection against governmental intrusion, and the
government‟s unique interest in investigating and suppressing criminal activity,
we have said that employee expectations of privacy against government searches
are “not directly applicable” in the privacy tort context. (Sanders, supra, 20
Cal.4th 907, 919, fn. 3.) Here, as elsewhere, we do not suggest that the same
standards necessarily apply in both settings. (Ibid.) We note, however, that where
a governmental search intrudes upon an enclosed office or other protected
workplace, and where covert video surveillance is involved, limited but reasonable
expectations of privacy may exist under the Fourth Amendment. (Compare U.S. v.
Taketa
(9th Cir. 1991) 923 F.2d 665, 674-678 [disapproving admission of
warrantless secret videotape made in shared office of airport]; and State v. Bonnell
(Hawaii 1993) 856 P.2d 1265, 1275-1277 [upholding suppression of warrantless
secret videotape made in employee break room of post office], with Vega-
Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co
. (1st Cir. 1997) 110 F.3d 174, 178-182
[allowing visible videotaping in open and undivided communications center of
phone company]; and Nelson v. Salem State College (Mass. 2006) 845 N.E.2d
338, 346-347 [allowing secret videotaping in open area of business development
office accessible to general public].)
27


presence of a functioning camera in plaintiffs‟ office during the workday, and on
the inchoate risk that someone would sneak into the locked storage room and
activate the monitoring and recording devices. Defendants imply that under a
broader view of the relevant circumstances, no reasonable jury could find in
plaintiffs‟ favor and impose liability on this evidentiary record. We agree.
For guidance, we note that this court has previously characterized the
“offensiveness” element as an indispensible part of the privacy analysis. It reflects
the reality that “[n]o community could function if every intrusion into the realm of
private action” gave rise to a viable claim. (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 37.) Hence,
no cause of action will lie for accidental, misguided, or excusable acts of
overstepping upon legitimate privacy rights. (Miller, supra, 187 Cal.App.3d 1463,
1483-1484.) In light of such pragmatic policy concerns (see Taus, supra, 40
Cal.4th 683, 737), a court determining whether this requirement has been met as a
matter of law examines all of the surrounding circumstances, including the
“degree and setting” of the intrusion and “the intruder‟s „motives and
objectives.‟ ” (Shulman, supra, 18 Cal.3d 200, 236, quoting and following Miller,
supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1483-1484.) Courts also may be asked to decide
whether the plaintiff, in attempting to defeat a claim of competing interests, has
shown that the defendant could have minimized the privacy intrusion through
other reasonably available, less intrusive means. (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 38.)
1. Degree and Setting of Intrusion. This set of factors logically
encompasses the place, time, and scope of defendants‟ video surveillance efforts.
In this case, they weigh heavily against a finding that the intrusion upon plaintiffs‟
privacy interests was highly offensive or sufficiently serious to warrant liability.
In context, defendants took a measured approach in choosing the location to
videotape the person who was misusing the computer system. Evidently,
plaintiffs‟ office was not the preferred spot. Hitchcock initially tried to capture the
28
culprit in the computer laboratory. Based on the consistently high level of human
traffic he described there, the laboratory apparently was far more accessible and
less secluded than plaintiffs‟ office. The surveillance equipment was moved to the
latter location only after Hitchcock determined it was too difficult to pinpoint who
was using computers inappropriately in the open, more public laboratory setting.
Defendants‟ surveillance efforts also were largely confined to the area in
which the unauthorized computer activity had occurred. Once the camera was
placed in plaintiffs‟ office, it was aimed towards Lopez‟s desk and computer
workstation. There is no evidence that Hitchcock intended or attempted to include
Hernandez‟s desk in camera range. We can reasonably infer he avoided doing so,
because no improper computer use had been detected there.
Likewise, access to the storage room and knowledge of the surveillance
equipment inside were limited. A total of two people other than Hitchcock and
Foster (Susanne Crummey and Stacey Brake) knew that the television/recorder
was set up to monitor plaintiffs‟ office. Only one of them (Crummey) had a key to
the lock on the storage room door. The spot was relatively remote and secure.
Timing considerations favor defendants as well. After being moved to
plaintiffs‟ office and the storage room, the surveillance equipment was operational
during a fairly limited window of time. Hitchcock decided to remove the
equipment (and plaintiffs coincidentally discovered it) a mere 21 days later, during
which time no one had accessed Lopez‟s computer for pornographic purposes.
We can infer from the undisputed evidence that Hitchcock kept abreast of his own
monitoring activities, and did not expose plaintiffs to the risk of covert visual
monitoring or video recording any longer than was necessary to determine that his
plan would not work, and that the culprit probably had been scared away.
Defendants‟ actual surveillance activities also were quite limited in scope.
On the one hand, the camera and motion detector in plaintiffs‟ office were always
29
plugged into the electrical circuit and capable of operating the entire time they
were in place. On the other hand, Hitchcock took the critical step of connecting
the wireless receptors and activating the system only three times. At most, he was
responsible for monitoring and recording inside of plaintiffs‟ office an average of
only once a week for three weeks. Such measures were hardly excessive or
egregious. (Cf. Wolfson v. Lewis (E.D.Pa. 1996) 924 F.Supp. 1413, 1420
[electronic surveillance that is persistent and pervasive may constitute a tortious
intrusion on privacy even when conducted in a public or semi-public place].)
Moreover, on each of these three occasions, Hitchcock connected the
wireless devices and allowed the system to remotely monitor and record events
inside plaintiffs‟ office only after their shifts ended, and after they normally left
Hillsides‟ property. He never activated the system during regular business hours
when plaintiffs were scheduled to work. The evidence shows they were not
secretly viewed or taped while engaged in personal or clerical activities.
On the latter point, we agree with defendants that their successful effort to
avoid capturing plaintiffs on camera is inconsistent with an egregious breach of
social norms. For example, in a case closely on point, one court has held that even
where an employer placed a camera in an area reserved for the most personal
functions at work, such that heightened privacy expectations applied, the lack of
any viewing or recording defeated the employee‟s invasion of privacy claim.
(E.g., Meche v. Wal-Mart, Stores, Inc. (La.Ct.App. 1997) 692 So.2d 544, 547
[camera concealed in ceiling of restroom to prevent theft].) This circumstance
also distinguishes plaintiffs‟ case from those we have discussed above, in which
covert visual monitoring and video recording in an employment setting supported
a viable intrusion claim. (E.g., Doe, supra, 945 F.2d 1422, 1424, 1427 [models‟
changing area]; Trujillo, supra, 428 F.Supp.2d 1094, 1100, 1119-1122 [police
locker room]; Liberti, supra, 912 F.Supp. 1494, 1499 [dancers‟ dressing room].)
30
2. Defendants’ motives, justifications, and related issues. This case
does not involve surveillance measures conducted for socially repugnant or
unprotected reasons. (See, e.g., Shulman, supra, 18 Cal.4th 200, 237 [harassment,
blackmail, or prurient curiosity].) Nor, contrary to what plaintiffs imply, does the
record reveal the absence of any reasonable justification or beneficial motivation.
The undisputed evidence is that defendants installed video surveillance equipment
in plaintiffs‟ office, and activated it three times after they left work, in order to
confirm a strong suspicion — triggered by publicized network tracking measures
— that an unknown staff person was engaged in unauthorized and inappropriate
computer use at night. Given the apparent risks under existing law of doing
nothing to avert the problem, and the limited range of available solutions,
defendants‟ conduct was not highly offensive for purposes of establishing a
tortious intrusion into private matters. Our reasoning is as follows.
For legitimate business reasons, employers commonly link their network
servers to the Internet, and provide employees with computers that have direct
access to the network and the Internet. (Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.
(2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 805-806 (Delfino) [noting trend over previous
decade].) As this phenomenon has grown, employers have adopted formal
policies regulating the scope of appropriate computer and Internet use. Such
policies contemplate reasonable monitoring efforts by employers, and authorize
employee discipline for noncompliance. (E.g., Delfino, supra, at p. 800, fn. 13
[authorizing discharge for transmitting any threatening, sexually explicit, or
harassing item on company computers]; TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior
Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 446 (TBG) [similar policy as to derogatory,
defamatory, or obscene material, coupled with notice that company would monitor
employee computer use]; id. at p. 451 [discussing American Management
Association report stating that most large firms regulate and monitor employee
31
Internet use]; cf. Chin et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Employment Litigation (The
Rutter Group 2007) ¶ 5:782.5 et seq. [exploring limits on computer monitoring in
workplace].)
Despite efforts to control the problem, the potential for abuse of computer
systems and Internet access in the workplace is wide-ranging. (See, e.g., Intel
Corp. v. Hamidi (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1342, 1347 [holding that employee did not
commit tort of trespass to chattels by sending mass emails on employer‟s
electronic system, but otherwise declining to exempt Internet messages from
general rules of tort liability]; TBG, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 446-447
[employee terminated after repeatedly accessing pornographic Web sites on
computer at work].) The consequences to employers may be serious. (E.g.,
Delfino, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 795-796, 800 [third parties sued employer
on various counts after receiving vile threats that employee sent over Internet from
work computer]; Monge v. Superior Court (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 503, 506-507,
509 [employee stated claims for discrimination, harassment, and punitive damages
against employer who failed to investigate her complaints about receiving sexually
offensive message from supervisors on her work computer].)
Here, Hitchcock learned that the computer in plaintiffs‟ office was being
used to access the Internet late at night, long after their shifts ended, by someone
not authorized to use that equipment or office. Data recorded and stored inside the
computer system itself convinced Hitchcock and the computer specialist, Foster,
that the unauthorized user was viewing sexually explicit Web sites. Given the
hour at which this unauthorized Internet activity occurred, Hitchcock strongly
suspected that the responsible party was a program director or other staff person
with keys and access to the administration building, which was otherwise locked
at that hour.
32
Such use of Hillsides‟ computer equipment by an employee violated written
workplace policies circulated both before and after the challenged surveillance
activities occurred. As those policies warned, and case law confirms, the
offending conduct posed a risk that the perpetrator might expose Hillsides to legal
liability from various quarters. At the very least, parties on both sides confirmed
that accessing pornography on company computers was inconsistent with
Hillsides‟ goal to provide a wholesome environment for the abused children in its
care, and to avoid any exposure that might aggravate their vulnerable state.
We also note that Hitchcock‟s repeated assurances that he installed the
surveillance equipment solely to serve the foregoing purposes and not to invade
plaintiffs‟ privacy are corroborated by his actions afterwards. When confronted by
plaintiffs about the camera in their office, he explained its presence, and tried to
assuage their concerns about being suspected of wrongdoing and secretly
videotaped. To this end, he showed them the actual surveillance tape on demand
and without delay. Against this backdrop, a reasonable jury could find it difficult
to conclude that defendants‟ conduct was utterly unjustified and highly offensive.
Plaintiffs argue that even assuming defendants acted to prevent a rogue
employee from accessing pornography on Hillsides‟ computers, and to minimize a
genuine risk of liability and harm, no claim or defense of justification has been
established as a matter of law. Plaintiffs insist triable issues exist as to whether
defendants could have employed means less offensive than installing the camera
in their office and connecting it to the monitor and recorder nearby. Examples
include better enforcement of Hillsides‟ log-off/password-protection policy,
installation of software filtering programs,10 closer nighttime monitoring of the

10
Plaintiffs fault defendants for not using “Net Nanny,” a software program
that apparently limits access to the Internet. Hitchcock testified that Hillsides

(footnote continued on next page)
33


camera outside the administration building, increased security patrols at night, and
receipt of plaintiffs‟ informed consent to video surveillance.
Contrary to what plaintiffs imply, it appears defendants are not required to
prove that there were no less intrusive means of accomplishing the legitimate
objectives we have identified above in order to defeat the instant privacy claim. In
the past, we have specifically declined to “impos[e] on a private organization,
acting in a situation involving decreased expectations of privacy, the burden of
justifying its conduct as the „least offensive alternative‟ possible under the
circumstances.” (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 50 [invoking language and history of
state constitutional privacy provision and relevant case authority]; accord,
Sheehan, supra, 45 Cal.4th 992, 1002.)
The argument lacks merit in any event. First, the alternatives that plaintiffs
propose would not necessarily have achieved at least one of defendants‟ aims —
determining whether a program director was accessing pornographic Web sites in
plaintiffs‟ office. Rather, it is the same suspect group of program directors on
whom plaintiffs would have had defendants more heavily rely to monitor exterior
cameras and perform office patrols. Obtaining plaintiffs‟ consent also might have
risked disclosing the surveillance plan to other employees, including the program
directors. With respect to stricter regulation of employee computer use (software
filters and log-off enforcement), such steps might have stopped the improper use

(footnote continued from previous page)

installed “Net Nanny” after the relevant events occurred, and that it was being
used in June 2004, when Hitchcock was deposed. However, it is not clear from
his testimony, or from plaintiffs‟ briefs, when such software first became available
or how it worked. Hitchcock explained that, before Hillsides installed “Net
Nanny,” no child could operate a computer without direct adult supervision.

34


of Lopez‟s computer. However, they would not have helped defendants identify
the employee who performed such activity and who posed a risk of liability and
harm in the workplace. (See Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 50 [rejecting proposed
alternatives as “different in kind and character” than challenged acts].)
Second, for reasons suggested above, this is not a case in which “sensitive
information [was] gathered and feasible safeguards [were] slipshod or
nonexistent.” (Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 38.) Rather, privacy concerns are
alleviated because the intrusion was “limited” and no information about plaintiffs
was accessed, gathered, or disclosed. (Ibid.) As we have seen, defendants did not
suspect plaintiffs of using their computers improperly, and sought to ensure that
they were not present when any monitoring or recording in their office occurred.
The video equipment was rarely activated and then only at night, when plaintiffs
were gone. There was no covert surveillance of them behind closed doors.
CONCLUSION
We appreciate plaintiffs‟ dismay over the discovery of video equipment —
small, blinking, and hot to the touch — that their employer had hidden among
their personal effects in an office that was reasonably secluded from public access
and view. Nothing we say here is meant to encourage such surveillance measures,
particularly in the absence of adequate notice to persons within camera range that
their actions may be viewed and taped.
35
Nevertheless, considering all the relevant circumstances, plaintiffs have not
established, and cannot reasonably expect to establish, that the particular conduct
of defendants that is challenged in this case was highly offensive and constituted
an egregious violation of prevailing social norms. We reach this conclusion from
the standpoint of a reasonable person based on defendants‟ vigorous efforts to
avoid intruding on plaintiffs‟ visual privacy altogether. Activation of the
surveillance system was narrowly tailored in place, time, and scope, and was
prompted by legitimate business concerns. Plaintiffs were not at risk of being
monitored or recorded during regular work hours and were never actually caught
on camera or videotape.
We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal insofar as it
reversed and vacated the trial court‟s order granting defendants‟ motion for
summary judgment on all counts alleged in the complaint.
BAXTER, J.
WE CONCUR:
GEORGE, C. J.
KENNARD, J.
WERDEGAR, J.
CHIN, J.
MORENO, J.
CORRIGAN, J.

36


See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.

Name of Opinion Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Unpublished Opinion


Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted
XXX 142 Cal.App.4th 1377
Rehearing Granted

__________________________________________________________________________________

Opinion No.

S147552
Date Filed: August 3, 2009
__________________________________________________________________________________

Court:

Superior
County: Los Angeles
Judge: C. Edward Simpson

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Appellant:

Eisenberg & Associates, Arnold Kessler and Mark S. Eisenberg for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Respondent:

Seyfarth Shaw, Laura Wilson Shelby, Holger G. Besch, Candice Zee and Amy C. Chang for Defendants
and Respondents.

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Paul W. Cane, Jr., and Teresa J. Hutson for Employers Group and
California Employment Law Council as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):

Mark S. Eisenberg
Eisenberg & Associates
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90025
(310) 444-1100

Holger G. Besch
Seyfarth Shaw
2029 Century Park East, 33d Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3063
(310) 277-7200

Paul W. Cane, Jr.
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker
55 Second Street, Twenty-Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 856-7000


Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: May employees assert a cause of action for invasion of privacy when their employer installed a hidden surveillance camera in the office to investigate whether someone was using an office computer for improper purposes, only operated the camera after normal working hours, and did not actually capture any video of the employees who worked in the office?

Opinion Information
Date:Citation:Docket Number:Category:Status:
Mon, 08/03/200947 Cal. 4th 272, 211 P.3d 1063, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274S147552Review - Civil Appealopinion issued

Parties
1Hernandez, Abigail (Plaintiff and Appellant)
Represented by Mark Steven Eisenberg
Eisenberg & Associates
12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA

2Hillsides, Inc. (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Amy Carol Chang
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA

3Hillsides, Inc. (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Laura Wilson Shelby
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA

4Hillsides, Inc. (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Holger C. Besch
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
333 S. Hope Street, Suite 3900
Los Angeles, CA

5Hitchcock, John M. (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Amy Carol Chang
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA

6Hitchcock, John M. (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Laura Wilson Shelby
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA

7Hitchcock, John M. (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Holger C. Besch
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP
333 S. Hope Street, Suite 3900
Los Angeles, CA

8California Employment Law Council (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Teresa J. Hutson
Paul Hastings et al., LLP
55 Second Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA

9California Employment Law Council (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Paul W. Cane
Paul Hastings et al., LLP
55 Second Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA

10Employers Group (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Teresa J. Hutson
Paul Hastings et al., LLP
55 Second Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA

11Employers Group (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Paul W. Cane
Paul Hastings et al., LLP
55 Second Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA


Opinion Authors
OpinionJustice Marvin R. Baxter

Disposition
Aug 3 2009Opinion: Reversed

Dockets
Oct 25 2006Petition for review filed
respondents Hillsides Inc. attorney Holger G. Besch, retained.
Oct 25 2006Record requested
Oct 26 2006Received Court of Appeal record
Nov 14 2006Answer to petition for review filed
appellant Abigail Hernandez attorney Mark Eisenberg, retained.
Dec 15 2006Application for relief from default filed
respondents Hillsides, Inc., to file late reply to the answer
Dec 15 2006Received:
Respondents Hillsides, Inc., late Reply to the Answer.
Dec 18 2006Time extended to grant or deny review
to and including January 23, 2007
Dec 19 2006Reply to answer to petition filed
with permission (18 days late). Hillsides, Inc. and John M. Hitchcock, respondents by Holger G. Besch of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, retained.
Jan 3 2007Petition for review granted (civil case)
votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, & Moreno, JJ. Corrigan, J., was absent and did not participate.
Jan 3 2007Letter sent to:
All parties enclosing a copy of the grant order and the form for certification of interested entities and persons form.
Jan 4 20072nd record request
Jan 4 2007Received Court of Appeal record
Jan 12 2007Letter sent to:
Holger C. Besch at counsel's current law firm (Seyfarth Shaw LLP) (Grant order and CIP form enclosed)
Jan 18 2007Certification of interested entities or persons filed
Respondents Hillsides, Inc. and John M. Hitchcock Attorney Holger C. Besch
Feb 6 2007Request for extension of time filed
to file opening brief/merits to 02-16-2007 Respondents Hillsides and John M. Hitchcock
Feb 9 2007Extension of time granted
On application of respondents and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the opening brief on the merits is extended to and including February 16, 2007.
Feb 13 2007Request for extension of time filed
to file Answer Brief/Meritis of apellants Abigail Hernandez and Maria-Jose Lopez Attorney Mark S. Eisenberg [to April 2, 2007)
Feb 16 2007Opening brief on the merits filed
Respondents Hillsides and John M. Hitchcock
Mar 1 2007Extension of time granted
On application of respondents and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including April 2, 2007.
Apr 4 2007Answer brief on the merits filed
Appellants Abigail Hernandez and Maria-Jose Lopez
Apr 20 2007Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
Respondents Hillsides Inc., and John M. Hitchcock
May 17 2007Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief
Employers Group and California Employment Law Council in support of appellant (Hillsides, Inc.) by Paul W. Cane, Jr. of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP
May 29 2007Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted
The application of Employers Group and California Employment Law Council for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellant is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief.
May 29 2007Amicus curiae brief filed
Employers Group and California Employment Law Council in support of appellant. by Paul W. Cane, Jr., counsel
Apr 22 2009Case ordered on calendar
to be argued Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., in Los Angeles
May 8 2009Application filed
Application to divide oral argument filed by Holger G. Besch, counsel for respondents Hillsides, Inc. et al., requesting to share 10 minutes of time with amici curiae California Employment Law Council et al.
May 11 2009Received:
Notice of change of address, telephone number for Holger G. Besch of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, counsel for respondents Hillsides and John M. Hitchcock
May 13 2009Order filed
The request of counsel for respondents in the above-referenced cause to allow two counsel to argue on behalf of respondents at oral argument is hereby granted. The request of respondents to allocate to amici curiae California Employment Law Council et al. 10 minutes of respondents' 30-minute allotted time for oral argument is granted.
May 22 2009Received:
Notice of Supplemental Authority from respondents Hillsides and John M. Hitchcock.
Jun 3 2009Cause argued and submitted
Jul 31 2009Notice of forthcoming opinion posted
Aug 3 2009Opinion filed: Judgment reversed
We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal insofar as it reversed and vacated the trial court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts alleged in the complaint. Majority Opinion by Baxter, J. -- joined by George, C.J., Kennard, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno,and Corrigan, JJ.

Briefs
Feb 16 2007Opening brief on the merits filed
Respondents Hillsides and John M. Hitchcock
Apr 4 2007Answer brief on the merits filed
Appellants Abigail Hernandez and Maria-Jose Lopez
Apr 20 2007Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
Respondents Hillsides Inc., and John M. Hitchcock
May 29 2007Amicus curiae brief filed
Employers Group and California Employment Law Council in support of appellant.
If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website
Nov 11, 2009
Annotated by Kevin Papay

This case concerns a workplace invasion of privacy claim by plaintiffs Abigail Hernandez and Maria-Jose Lopez (“Plaintiffs” collectively) against their employer: defendants Hillsides, Inc., Hillsides Children Center, Inc. and John M. Hitchcock (“Defendants” collectively).

Plaintiffs were employees of the Hillsides Children Center, a private nonprofit residential facility for neglected and abused children, including victims of sexual abuse. Plaintiffs alleged that their employer violated their right to privacy by installing a hidden video camera with remote recording capabilities in their shared office.

Defendant Hitchcock, the facility director, installed the camera after learning that Lopez’s computer was being used after hours to access pornographic web sites in violation of the company’s policies. Although Hitchcock did not suspect that either Hernandez or Lopez were responsible for this behavior, he gave Plaintiffs no notice of the camera’s installation. Plaintiffs discovered it hidden among objects on their bookshelf three weeks after its installation.

The video camera was connected to a wireless device and television in a locked storage room. Only Hitchcock and several supervisory employees and program directors had access to the room. Although the video camera and its accompanying motion sensor were plugged in and capable of being operated remotely at all times, Hitchcock never activated the system during regular business hours or when Plaintiffs were scheduled to work. After Plaintiffs discovered the camera, Hitchcock explained the reason for the camera’s installation and permitted Plaintiffs to view the recorded tapes. At no time did Plaintiffs appear on the tapes; they were never secretly viewed or taped while engaged in any activities in the office. In fact, no one was videotaped or caught using the computer in Plaintiffs’ office.

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ actions violated their right to privacy under both the common law and the California Constitution. [Plaintiffs’ claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress were not reviewed by the Supreme Court in this case.]

Previously, the trial court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which the Court of Appeal reversed. The Court of Appeal found two triable issues regarding Plaintiffs’ invasion of privacy claim: (1) that Plaintiffs had suffered an intrusion into a protected zone of privacy; and (2) that the intrusion was so unjustified and offensive as to constitute a privacy violation. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court of California, Justice Baxter affirmed the Court of Appeal’s determination regarding the first issue. As to whether the Defendants’ actions were highly offensive or sufficiently serious enough to constitute a privacy violation, however, the Supreme Court held that the drastically limited nature and scope of any actual surveillance that took place presented no triable issue.

The Court found that Plaintiffs had some legitimate privacy expectations in their office due to its semi-private nature. The Court also acknowledged that hidden video cameras in particular can have an intrusive effect in settings that otherwise would be private. However, the court ultimately focused its analysis on the fact that Hitchcock never viewed or recorded Plaintiffs inside their office. Nor did he intend or attempt to do so. Rather, the undisputed evidence showed that Hitchcock took steps to avoid capturing Plaintiffs on camera and videotape.

The Court also emphasized that Defendants had a legitimate business reason for using the hidden camera to confirm that an unknown staff person was engaged in unauthorized and inappropriate computer use at night. Such behavior by a staff person might have subjected Defendants to legal liability and was inconsistent with Hillsides’ goal of providing a wholesome environment for the abused children in its care, especially those who had suffered sexual abuse.

The Court concluded that “considering all the relevant circumstances, plaintiffs have not established, and cannot reasonably expect to establish, that the particular conduct of defendant that [was] challenged in this case was highly offense and constituted an egregious violation of prevailing social norms….Activation of the surveillance system was narrowly tailored in place, time, and scope, and was prompted by legitimate business concerns. Plaintiffs were not at risk of being monitored or recorded during regular work hours and were actually caught on camera or videotape.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment insofar as it allowed the privacy claim to proceed to trial. This reinstated the trial court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all counts alleged in the complaint.