Week 7 Case Study: Deal v. Spears
HRMG 5700
December 8, 2013

Deal v. Spears Case Summary
This case is about a woman named Sibbie Deal that was employed at the White Oaks Package Store that operates as a liquor store located near Camden, Arkansas and it is owned and operated by Newell and Juanita Spears. She began to work at this store on December 31, 1989. Around April 21, 1990 the store was broken into and about $16,000 was stolen. The Spears were under the suspicion that it was an inside job and based on Mrs. Deal testimony they suspected she was directly involved in the theft. Hoping that Mrs. Deal admitted her involvement on the situation the Spears thought about using a recording device to monitor the telephone calls. At the deposition according to Mr. Spears he asked Mr. Cope the Sheriff Department Investigator about starting to record the calls and he said he did not see anything wrong by doing that. Once the device was installed and the conversations were monitored when Mrs. Spears was listening to a tape she found out that Mrs. Deal sold a keg of beer to Calvin Lucas which at the time they were having an extramarital affair at a discounted price violating the store policy. After Mrs. Deal came to work and the Spears played the incriminating tape which consequently got her fired.
Several weeks after the incident Mrs. Deal and Mr. Lucas filed an action causing the tapes and the recorder to be seized by a United States deputy marshal. The action was brought pursuant to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 that it makes it unlawful for anyone to willfully intercept, use, or disclose any wire, oral, or electronic communication. The Spears claim that Mrs. Deal consented to the calls interception prior of happening. The plaintiffs believed their conversations were private because it was just mentioned that it could happen and the court found that they both had reasonable expectation that their conversations were private. The court found that Mr. and Mrs. Spears were liable for the plaintiff’s damages for intentionally intercepting the phone conversations. The court ordered the Spears to pay for statutory damages for both Mrs. Deal and Mr. Lucas totaling $40, 000 and granted the request for attorney’s fees. The court denied punitive damages for the Spears (Twomey, 2013).
Case Questions
1. It is not unlawful to monitor the telephone conversation of an employee if the employee has given prior consent. Did Deal give her employer consent in this case?
Under the Wiretap Act it is not illegal to intercept telephone conversations or other communications as long one of the parties has given prior consent therefore employers can monitor their employee’s calls if consent is obtained in advance (Tschanz, 2012).
In this case the Spears told Mrs. Deal if she does not cut down on her personal phone calls they might install a pay phone or monitor the calls which is not giving the employee previous notice of when they will start recording the calls. It is not mentioned that
Mrs. Deal consented to these conditions of allowing her employer to record her personal conversations.
2. Because of the recent burglary of the store, did the employer have a legitimate business reason to record and review the employee’s phone calls made or received while at work?
Under the Wiretap Act under the business extension exception employers may monitor and even record employee’s telephone calls without consent as long as they can show a legitimate business reason to record those calls. In this case the Spears had a legitimate business reason because of the recent burglary and the suspicion of an employee involvement however the Spears recorded twenty-two hours of calls and not all of them were in relation to the business interest (Twomey, 2013).

3. Under the Watkins precedent, what is the extent to which an employer can monitor personal phone calls to employees within the ordinary course of business exemption of the federal wiretapping law?
In the Watkins precedent it was found by the court that an employer monitoring employee personal calls is never in the ordinary course of business with the exception of the necessary extent to guard against unlawful use of the telephone or to define whether call is personal or is not personal. In addition, the court added that to remain within the exception, the manager must stop listening to the call once it is found that is personal
(Bagby, Harvey, & Tishman, n.d.).

References
Bagby, J.W., Harvey, P.R., Candidate, J.D., & Tishman, D.A. (n.d.). The Electronic Surveillance Project. Retrieved from http://esurveillance.ist.psu.edu/WATKINSvLMBERRY.php
Twomey, D. P. (2013). Labor and Employment Law: Text and Cases. : South-Western, Cengage
Tschanz, P. T., (2012). Electronic monitoring of employees’ telephone conversations: a quick reminder for employers. Retrieved from http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f07795c2-d1b3-4ae6-840a-88ef00bef724