Staff, Author at HELMER FRIEDMAN LLP 310-396-7714

Speech to Address Email, Voicemail & Snailmail: Privacy Issues in the New Workplace

Privacy Issues in the Workplace: Email, Voicemail & Snailmail

On January 27, 2006, Andrew H. Friedman will speak at the California State Bar Association’s Section Education Institute on Email, Voicemail, and Snailmail: Privacy Issues in the New Workplace. The speech will address recent technological advances that have made it relatively easy for employers to monitor (e.g., “spy on”) their employees’ electronic communications in the workplace – employers can monitor employees’ computer keystrokes, review instant messages sent and received by employees, keep track of the internet web sites visited by employees, calculate how much time employees spend “playing” on the internet, access voice-mail messages left for employees, monitor employee telephone conversations, and read instant messages and e-mails that are sent and received by employees at work.

The speech will take place at Loews Santa Monica Beach Hotel in Santa Monica, California and will take place 9:45 a.m. until 11:45 a.m.

Lawsuit Against Hospital for Violating Fair Employment Rights Class Action Certification Denial Reversed by Appellate Court

PRESS RELEASE May 31, 2005

Job Applicants Required to Divulge Reproductive Dysfunctions, Infertility, Pregnancy, Venereal Disease, Still Born Births, and Miscarriages in Order to Get a Job.

The Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal recently reversed the trials courts’ denial of class action certification in the case of Grace Fontana v. St. Joseph Hospital of Orange, (Superior Court Case No. 03CC02559), arising out of the Hospital’s policy and practice of requiring each and every job applicant to reveal personal and intimate details about their private lives in order to receive employment.

After offering employment to job applicants, the Hospital required individuals to answer questions such as whether the applicant had ever had:

venereal disease;
taken birth control pills;
problems with infertility;
children with birth defects;
stillborn children;
fetuses/unborn children with birth defects;
miscarriages;
problems with pregnancies;
problems with menstrual periods;
problems with urination;
seen a counselor, psychiatrist or psychologist and
cancer of any kind.”

The Appellate Court ruled: “Recognizing plaintiff’s theory that many questions … are not related to any job at the hospital, and there is no business necessity to ask these questions, it is somewhat difficult to understand why a class cannot be certified, at least for the purpose of establishing whether or not there is class wide liability entitling the class to injunctive relief.”

Ms. Fontana’s attorney, Gregory D. Helmer, of HELMER · FRIEDMAN LLP, stated: "For years, the hospital forced thousands of applicants to answer these horribly invasive questions in order to get a job. Now, these individuals may have an efficient way to correct the harm that has been done to them."

Commenting on the decision, Ms. Fontana’s attorney, V. James DeSimone of SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN, LLP stated: “This is an important victory. This decision vindicates the right to a class action for California workers when an employer violates California’s Fair and Employment and Housing Act. The Appeal’s Court was
correctly persuaded by the excellent oral advocacy by attorney Michael Morrison.”

About Staff

Practice Areas

Locations Served

Attorney Directory