|
ALBANY---It would seem to be common sense that it should be illegal for an employer to tape their employees while they're changing their clothes but the existing laws were vague, making such acts often difficult to prosecute.
The New York State Senate gave final legislative passage Thursday to a bill, sponsored by Senator George Maziarz (R-C, North Tonawanda), that would prohibit employers from video or audio taping employees while they are in rooms designated by employers for employees to change their clothes.
"This legislation attempts to restrict employers from certain forms of employee monitoring by prohibiting private employers from making audio or video recordings of employees in a rest room, locker room, or room designated by the employer for changing clothes, unless authorized by court order," Sen. Maziarz said. "Employees have a right to privacy in these areas and we need to protect that right."
The bill (S.7849) prohibits employers from video or audio taping employees while they are in rooms designated by employers for employees where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Recordings made in violation of this bill would be inadmissible in court. An employee violated by this bill could, among other remedies, sue for damages, attorney's fees, and bring injunctive relief against an employer.
The bill will be sent to the Governor for his consideration.
In addition, the Senate also passed privacy legislation, also sponsored by Sen. Maziarz, that would amend the law to address cases where people's privacy is violated by "peeping Toms".
The bill (S.3336) would enable the prosecution of peeping Toms who observe people with unaided eyes or by using an imaging device placed in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, rest room, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a spa, hotel, motel or inn.
"Peeping Tom type crimes are difficult to prosecute as there is no particular law that covers each potential situation," Sen. Maziarz said. "This bill will provide an avenue for prosecution of these cases where an individual watches someone for entertainment, amusement, to degrade someone or for sexual satisfaction."
An example of this occurred in Niagara County where the district attorney's office prosecuted a case, in December 2004, where the defendant was accused of deliberately looking over the top of a tanning bed wall at a young girl who was completely nude.
He was charged with disorderly conduct but a non-jury trial found him innocent. While the judge found the defendant's actions reprehensible, the prosecution did not prove that the defendant's conduct created a public disturbance.
The Court of Appeals has held that disorderly conduct must be of a public not a private matter. The 2003 video voyeurism law "Stephanie's Law" did not apply because no mechanical or electronic device of any kind was used. "Stephanie's Law" also is not penal law.
The bill was sent to the Assembly. 5-26-06
© 2006 North
Country Gazette
|
