Privacy Issues in the Workplace

E NDNOTES

1 Katz v. U.S. (1967) 389 U.S. 347 [88 S.Ct. 507], superseded by statute N.M. 2011) 150 N.M. 721; Whalen v. Roe (1977) 429 U.S. 589 [97 S.Ct. 869]. 2 Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479 [85 S.Ct. 1678]; Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) 405 U.S. 438 [92 S.Ct. 1029]; Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113 [93 S.Ct. 705]. 3 Thorne v. City of El Segundo (9th Cir. 1983) 726 F.2d 459, cert. den. (1984) 469 U.S. 979 [105 S.Ct. 380] and appeal after remand (9th Cir. 1986) 802 F.2d 1131, disagreed with (E.D. Mich. 2000) 81 F.Supp.2d 814. 4 Waters v. Churchill (1994) 511 U.S. 661 [114 S.Ct. 1878], motion den. (1994) 513 U.S. 804 [115 S.Ct. 49]. 5 Cal. Const., art. I, § 1. 6 Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834]. 7 Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. 8 Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 556. 9 Kapellas v. Kofman (1969) 1 Cal.3d 20 [81 Cal.Rptr. 360]. 10 Gov. Code, §§ 810, 815. 11 Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 899 [80 Cal.Rptr.3d 690]. 12 Forsher v. Bugliosi (1980) 26 Cal.3d 792 [163 Cal.Rptr. 628]; Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 1040 [201 Cal.Rptr. 665]. 13 Porten v. University of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825 [134 Cal.Rptr. 839]. 14 Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 808 [154 Cal.Rptr.3d 275]. 15 Tecza v. University of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2013) 532 Fed.Appx. 667 (unpublished). 16 Institute of Athletic Motivation v. University of Illinois (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 1 [170 Cal.Rptr. 411]; Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (c). (Application of statute limited on preemption grounds by Johnson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank DBA Chase Manhattan (E.D. Cal. 2008) 536 F.Supp.2d 1207 when certain federal claims are present.). 17 Deaile v. General Telephone Co. of California (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 841 [115 Cal.Rptr. 582]. 18 Emerson v. J. F. Shea Co. (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 579 [143 Cal.Rptr. 170]. 19 Lorenzana v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 626 [108 Cal.Rptr. 585]; Gill v. Hearst Pub. Co. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 224 [253 P.2d 441]. 20 Pettus v. Cole (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 402, 442-43 [57 Cal.Rptr.2d 46], as mod. on den. of rehg., review den. 21 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 v. City of Philadelphia (3d Cir. 1987) 812 F.2d 105, decision vacated by (3rd Cir. 1988) 859 F.2d 276. 22 Indeed, in a case discussed, ( Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 v. City of Philadelphia (3d Cir. 1987) 812 F.2d 105, decision vacated by Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 v. City of Philadelphia (3d Cir. 1988) 859 F.2d 276), Section 2(e)(2), the California Court of Appeal recognized that peace officers who seek to be promoted or transferred to specialized divisions whose work is unusually sensitive or requires high integrity can be subject to polygraph examinations. Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1535 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d 23]. Presumably, the employer also has greater latitude in applicant questioning for such positions because of the sensitivity of work at issue and the greater likelihood of job nexus for different types of questions. 23 National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson (2011) 562 U.S. 134 [131 S.Ct. 746]. 24 National Aeronautics and Space Administration v. Nelson (2011) 562 U.S. 134 [131 S.Ct. 746, 761].

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2019 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 177