Deal V. Spears, United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit 980 F.2D II53 (1992) case is associated with the problem of privacy at workplace. Plaintiffs Sibbie Deal and Calvin Lucas were seeking damages against defendants Newell and Juanita Spears, Deal's former employers. The Spearses owned the White Oak Package Store. The store was robbed that resulted in a $16,000 loss. The Spearses suspected that the robbery was an inside job and decided to record phone calls of their employee Sibbie Deal hoping to obtain an important information and catch a thief. They attached a recording device to their home phone which was the extension of the store phone. Sibbie Deal engaged into an extramarital affair with Calvin Lucas and often used the store phone for private conversations with Lucas. The conversations were characterized by a provocative sexual content. The Spearses listened to all phone calls including private conversations and heard that “Deal sold Lucas a keg of beer at cost, in violation of store policy. On August 13, 1990, when Deal came in to work the evening shift, Newell Spears played a few seconds of the incriminating tape for Deal and then fired her” (N.D., 2012, p.1). The Spearses disclosed information from private conversations to spouses of Deal and Lucas. Deal and Lucas filed a lawsuit in order to receive an adequate compensation for breach of privacy and disclosure of personal information.
As a result, the court approved the District Court's decision awarding a total of $40,000 in statutory damages to Deal and Lucas. However, the punitive damages were not imposed. The decision was formed after a careful consideration of all the factors and peculiarities of the situation. According to the existing laws, intentional interception of a wire or electronic communication as well as disclosure of the obtained information are reasons for criminal liability. The fact that Deal gave a consent to the interception was not proved.
In fact, consent to the interception was one of the key aspects of the case. It is not unlawful to monitor the telephone conversation of an employee if the employee has given prior consent. However, the defendants failed to prove that Deal gave such a consent. The Spearses did not inform her that they would monitor all phone conversations. They mentioned that it could happen, however, did not disclose to her that a recording device was attached to the extension of the store phone. Besides, the Spearses anticipated that Deal would not understand that she was monitored and continue to behave naturally that would possibly lead to the identification of a burglar.
Under certain conditions, it is legitimate for employers to listen to phone calls of employees. It is legal when there is a specific business situation that makes interception necessary. Burglary of the store can qualify as a legitimate business reason allowing interception, however, this action should be implemented in compliance with the concrete rules: “the intercepting equipment must be furnished to the user by the phone company or …