Topic 1, Team 11: GPS Workplace Surveillance

Introduction

The usage of Global Positioning System (GPS) devices in the workplace has been under scrutiny for at least the last decade. GPS is a locater service that determines the precise location of a device that has the capabilities enabled. It deciphers the location based on signals that are transmitted between satellite dishes and the device with GPS and based on the coordinates reported back, can easily map its position. In the event the device is lost or stolen, GPS is instrumental in its potential recovery and disabling the device. Additionally, GPS is able to detect the speed of travel or route information and is standard on most electronic devices. Naturally, this type of information would be appealing to an employer.

Recently, it is almost standard for employers to issue employees a company cellphone and/or laptop. In some industries, the use of a company vehicle is also the norm. Because GPS is standard on so many devices and vehicles due to technological advancement, employers have been using it to track the location of their employees to assess their productivity and often without their knowledge or permission. The question is: do employers have the right to monitor employees during business hours and beyond because they were issued company equipment? This article will address several court cases concerning GPS monitoring, two of which are regarding the workplace and one a criminal case that will likely impact the way employers handle GPS tracking.

Elgin vs. St. Louis Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 2005

Leon Elgin was a delivery driver for Coca-Cola in St. Louis, MS, due to some money discrepancies, the company informed him that a GPS device would be put in the vehicle he was allowed to use during business and personal hours. He was informed that he was no longer under investigation regarding the missing money but that his vehicle, along with several other delivery drivers, and had been monitored and would continue to be monitored via GPS tracking device. Elgin chose to sue the company, claiming they were violating his right to privacy. (Elgin) (Stills)

The court found in favor of St. Louis Coca-Cola Bottling company, stating they were not impeding Elgin's privacy in their installing a GPS device. The court claimed that the GPS device would only be able to report public knowledge, like where the car was located, and that was not considered a violation of the employees privacy on or off the clock. (Elgin)(Stills)

Cunningham vs New York State Department of Labor (DOL) 2010

Michael Cunningham worked for the Department of Labor in New York for over 30 years. His employer suspected workplace misconduct and proceeded to investigate Cunningham. The employer installed a GPS tracking device to the employee's personal vehicle and tracked Cunningham and his family for over a month. The employer even used the GPS to track Cunningham while he and his family were on vacation out of state. The initial investigation began because the DOL suspected Cunningham of falsifying his time sheets, which, based on the GPS data, was found to be accurate. The investigation concluded with Cunningham being terminated. (Cunningham)

The court found in favor of Cunningham in this case, stating that it was indeed a violation of his privacy to install a tracking device on his vehicle to determine his honesty on time sheets. They claimed he was wrongfully terminated because the methods DOL took to prove he was stealing from the company by reporting false hours were illegally obtained and never should have been the basis for his termination. The court further ruled Cunningham should be reinstated to his position. (Cunningham)

US vs. Jones 2012

This case is not concerning workplace surveillance directly but has the potential to really impact the way employers go about incorporating GPS tracking for employee's. In this case, Jones was suspected of drug trafficking and as part of their investigation, the FBI chose to monitor his car with a GPS tracking device. When the government obtained the evidence they needed to indict him, Jones attempted to have the GPS evidence suppressed based on a violation of privacy. The court allowed the evidence claiming because he was on public streets it was not a violation of his privacy but they did remove the times when he was parked in his private garage. Jones was found guilty of drug trafficking. (Parent)

Jones filed an appeal, based on the GPS evidence obtained, and his conviction was reversed. The court found that it was indeed a violation of his fourth amendment rights, the GPS device installed on his vehicle without a warrant was equivalent to an unlawful search and a violation of his privacy. (Parent)

Conclusion

Each of the cases discussed are a bit different and cannot be evenly compared, but show a possible progression regarding how GPS tracking may be addressed moving forward. There are many more cases over the past decade that have attempted to link GPS tracking as a violation of privacy to no avail. The court's position was always seemingly the same, that surveillance of a person in public is not a violation of privacy. In some cases the courts have ruled that as long as the surveillance is “not highly-offensive, unobtrusive, or for job-related purposes,” then it is well within the employers right (On Your Tracks). “Highly-offensive” is subjective and difficult to accurately measure.

The Jones case has the ability to significantly impact how employers approach their own GPS tracking. If the government is required to obtain a warrant in order to legally track the whereabouts of a suspect then a employer may reasonably be held to the same or similar standards, with or without a company issued vehicle or device. They may not be required to file for a warrant but should consider explicit documentation signed by the employee giving them permission to track them to avoid possible litigation due to a violation of rights.

Works Cited

"Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor (Challenging warrantless GPS tracking of state

employee's personal car) ." New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties

Union of New York State. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.nyclu.org/case/cunningham-v-new-york-state-department-of-labor-challenging-warrantless-gps-tracking-of-state-e>.

Elgin v. ST. LOUIS COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO., No. 4: 05CV970-DJS (E.D. Mo. Nov. 14, 2005).

Parent, Jennifer L.. "I Know Where You Were Last Night - Employers Using GPS To Monitor

Employees - Employment and HR - United States." Articles on USA, Law, Accountancy,

Management Consultancy Issues. Business NH Magazine, 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2013. <http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/216114/employee+rights+labour+relations/I+Know+Where+You+Were+Last+Night+Employers

"On Your Tracks: GPS Tracking in the Workplace." EPIC.org. Workrights.org, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

<epic.org/privacy/workplace/gps-traking.pdf>.

Stills, Kyle R.. "Employers with Eyes in the Back of Their Heads: The Use of GPS Devices in the

Workplace." Labor & Employment Law Section. North Carolina Bar Association, n.d. Web. 28 Apr.

2013. <http://laborandemploymentlaw.ncbar.org/newsletters/april2011laboremployment/gpsintheworkplace>.

"Privacy Today: A Review of Current Issues." Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Privacy Rights

Clearinghouse, 1 Mar. 2001. Web. 27 Apr. 2013.

<https://www.privacyrights.org/ar/Privacy-IssuesList.htm#wirelesscomm>.