Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 JULY 2013

GPS Ruling By York's Highest Court Sets Guideposts For Tracking Workers

Suspecting that its director of staff and organizational development was skipping work and submitting false time records to conceal his unauthorized absences, New York’s Department of Labor enlisted the state’s Office of Inspector General to investigate.

United StatesEmployment and HR

Suspecting that its director of staff and organizational development was skipping work and submitting false time records to conceal his unauthorized absences, New York's Department of Labor enlisted the state's Office of Inspector General (OIG) to investigate. The OIG surreptitiously attached a location tracking device to the director's personal vehicle and tracked the vehicle 24/7 for one month. The location tracking corroborated the department's suspicions, revealing that the director's car had not been at the office when the director's time records stated that he had been there. Nonetheless, the New York Court of Appeals in Cunningham v. New York State Dept. of Labor ruled that the Department of Labor could not rely on this evidence to support disciplinary charges. Although the case addresses the reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment of a search by a public employer, the case provides some useful guideposts for private employers seeking to use location tracking

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from