Candid camera in workplace dicey
Jeff had worked for 34 years as a Service Advisor in a car dealership in the Maritimes. He was 63 years old. One day a woman was noticed in the parking lot by another employee and asked if she needed assistance. She wanted to get her low oil alert turned off. He tried but could not do it and brought her inside. She ended up sitting down at a desk next to Jeff’s and speaking to someone there. She remained in the area for about 15 minutes while a technician worked on her car and then left.
As part of his job Jeff had been given an i-Pad with a camera function. As soon as this customer left he started showing other employees a video of the woman taken while she had been in the dealership. At least one of his female colleagues watched the video for about 15 seconds and then walked away in disgust. Most of his male colleagues had the same reaction. They described Jeff as grinning and laughing at the video. He referred to the woman as a new sports car with nice lines. It turns out that Jeff had taken 2 videos while the customer was in the dealership as well as a still picture. Later in the day he showed another employee a video of the woman on his cell phone. Jeff was quite proud of his use of technology and thought his video was quite funny. He joked about being able to see through the customer’s shirt.
One of Jeff’s female colleagues complained to management about Jeff’s behavior and a few days later he was terminated without notice for just cause. When Jeff sued he claimed that he only took the video because the woman was dressed like a prostitute and appeared to be drunk, speaking loudly. He said she approached the Service Desk area rapidly and in an overly animated manner in a shockingly inappropriate state of dress. He said he took the video to protect the dealership from liability if the customer should make any accusations of inappropriate behaviour later.
The problem with Jeff’s defense was that nobody else agreed. No one else agreed with Jeff’s assessment that the customer was intoxicated. No one else commented on what the woman was wearing which is appropriate since it does not matter. Several indicated that there was nothing about the woman that suggested she was under the influence of anything and no alcohol was detected. Jeff’s defense was blown out of the water. No one agreed with his assessment of the situation and his behavior, bragging and joking about the video, did not fit with his defence.To top it off, when Jeff met with management he was not contrite. While he admitted to taking the video he professed not to understand why it was a big deal and noted that there were security cameras in the building in any case.
I would pause to note that after 34 years of service an employee has to do something quite horrendous to warrant a termination without any notice or pay in lieu of notice. Jeff managed to do it. He exposed his employer to liability in two ways: He created a toxic work environment for his colleagues and exposed the dealership to a potential law suit from a customer Jeff treated the customer like a piece of meat whose privacy did not matter. These days, people are habituated to taking videos of all kinds of things and sharing them. Think twice and hard, however, before you do that at work.
