Reference no: EM131702384

Question: ANDERSON V. CITY OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA 374 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (E.D. GA 2005)

Facts: The city of Columbus maintained a call center. Operators who worked at the call center were on notice that calls would be monitored for quality of service. A recording system was installed to facilitate monitoring. Operators discovered that the system recorded anything and everything that was said while they wore their headsets, even when they weren't handling outside calls, such as after the called had been disconnected. One operator complained about her supervisor after a call had been terminated. The boss later listened to her grumbling on the recording monitor and fired the operator for her disparaging observations of him.

Issue: When are invasions of privacy intentional?

Decision: The trial judge ruled that for such a cause of action to be cognizable, the plaintiff had to prove that the intrusion was intentional, and not just the inadvertent offshoot of the vagaries of the recording system. The former operator's invasion of privacy claim, therefore, was dismissed.