## Facts

- William E. Thompson and other security officers worked for a community college and used a locker/security area at the workplace.
- As part of an internal investigation, the college installed a concealed video camera directed at the locker/security area.
- The camera recorded images only and did not capture sound.
- The surveilled area was open and accessible not only to security employees but also to other college employees; it was not a private, enclosed changing room.
- Plaintiffs sued the college and certain administrators involved in implementing the surveillance.

## Issues

1. Whether silent video surveillance, without recording sound, constitutes an unlawful “interception” of “oral communications” under Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.
2. Whether concealed video surveillance of an open workplace locker/security area violates the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy there.
3. Whether, after dismissal of the federal claims, the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law intrusion-upon-seclusion claim.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the ECPA Title I claim because the statute does not regulate silent video surveillance and no “oral communications” were intercepted.
- The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim because plaintiffs lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the open locker/security area.
- The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law intrusion-upon-seclusion claim and dismissed it without prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Title I of the ECPA regulates interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications; silent video surveillance that captures no sound is not an interception of an “oral communication” under 18 U.S.C. § 2510.
- A Fourth Amendment claim based on workplace surveillance requires a legitimate, objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the area monitored; access by other employees and an open, non-restricted setting weighs strongly against such an expectation.
- When all federal claims are resolved before trial, a federal court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and dismiss them without prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court held that video-only surveillance of an open employee locker/security area neither violated ECPA Title I nor constituted a Fourth Amendment search because no oral communications were intercepted and the employees lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy; the remaining state privacy claim was dismissed without prejudice for lack of retained supplemental jurisdiction.


Thompson v. Johnson Cnty. Cmty. Coll., 930 F. Supp. 501 (D. Kan. 1996)