Privacy Archives

Two sisters are suing the Biography Channel and A&E as well as a production company and the City of Naperville after they were reluctantly the subjects of an episode of "Female Forces."

Chelsea Frederick and Ferrara Daum say they were exiting their apartment dressed in pajama pants to go to a drive-through restaurant one night when a Naperville police officer detained Chelsea on a warrant for her failure to appear in traffic court.

According to the complaint, the following then occurred:

- The male police officer detained the plaintiffs to await the arrival of a female Naperville police officer and a camera crew filming "Female Forces."
- The plaintiffs were told the camera crew was for a documentary about the Naperville police.
- The plaintiffs told them they did not want to be filmed and were ignored.
- Chelsea was unable to post bond and was arrested.
- Ferrara was not physically restrained but felt compelled to stay with her younger sister.
- While being searched and handcuffed, Chelsea's pajama bottoms began falling down her hips but she could not lift them up because she was handcuffed.

Continue reading after the jump.

Follow me on Twitter at jenfernicola.

Recently, two Kmart employees sued the store for what they say was retaliatory discharge after complaining about being secretly taped.  [Refresh your memory here.] 

This week, I chatted with Chicago Employment Attorney Jason Bent from the law firm Smith & Bent, P.C., to discuss the issues this case raises, including privacy in the workplace.

Jason Bent does not represent any of the parties in the Kmart case.

Bar-Tender:  Thanks, Jason, for taking the time to answer a few questions that came up after learning of this case.  

Attorney Jason Bent:  You're welcome.  Thank you for asking for my input.  This is certainly an interesting case.  But before we get started, I need to give a brief disclaimer to your readers:  Nothing that I discuss in this Q&A is legal advice and it should not be considered a substitute for legal advice.  Anyone seeking legal advice on any of these matters should consult with their attorney.  

Bar-Tender:  Sounds good.  Thanks for that.  This case includes facts that deal with privacy issues but, ultimately, it's about retaliatory discharge.  So, let's understand that first.  What will the plaintiffs Ewa and Andrzej Maliszewski have to show, other than that they complained about being taped and were then later terminated?

Attorney Jason Bent:  In order to prove retaliatory discharge, the plaintiffs will need to show that they were fired for complaining about the videotaping, and that firing them for that complaint would violate the "clearly mandated public policy" of Illinois.  The only information we have available right now is the Complaint filed by the plaintiffs, so it is still difficult to predict what issues might arise in the case.  There may be some question raised about whether that was really the reason they were fired.  But I expect that the difficult part of this case, for the plaintiffs, will be establishing that firing them for complaining about the videotaping would violate "clearly mandated public policy."  Here, the plaintiffs have argued that their firing violates public policy because the videotaping constituted the privacy tort of "intrusion into seclusion" and was also a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.  The Fourth Amendment argument seems like it may be a stretch, since the defendants are both private companies and, at least from the allegations of the Complaint, there does not appear to be any state action involved. 
  
Bar-Tender: I found one explanation of retaliatory discharge broken down as a case where an employee is fired for participating in a protected activity, such as complaining about discrimination of a co-worker.  Can it also apply here where employees find secret tapes of their and other employees' changing room and want to stop this practice?

Continue reading after the jump.