Analyse The Plantfiff Case Summary

In this case we are faced with an employee caught in the crossfire or an employee setting boundaries to protect employees, students and other involved, but also violates those same groups right to privacy. Under most circumstances, those employed by the city, state or federal government are subjected to limited privacy. Organization are often uncertain were to draw the line between protecting the company’s assets and employees while providing a safe and secure work and school environment. In this case we discuss an employer who installs a surveillance camera to solve the problem of continuous theft of student’s personal good. What seems like a solution to capture the perpetrator ends with the School District facing possibly being held accountable for invasion of privacy.

Prior to the School deciding to install the camera to monitor inappropriate activity, who did the leaders consult and how was this method decided? According to reports the surveillance camera is not monitored by an individual on a constant basis, and the information is only held for 30 days and then deleted. The camera was hidden no students or teachers were aware of the camera being installed. The camera was placed in an area that is …show more content…
School Districts and other public have to use cautious and examine, how a decision could affect the group as a whole. The School District should have also sought the advice of a legal council to examine the pro and cons of installing a monitoring system in the Lock Room. If the School, has properly informed the students and staff in the beginning the situation may have charted a different response. The camera being hidden could raise several ethical and privacy concerns because minors also use the space in questioned. Recording of minor in said predicament could also yield the School District to potential legal