## Facts

- L.M. Berry & Co. employed Carmie Watkins as a telephone sales representative soliciting Yellow Pages advertising.
- The company maintained a stated policy of monitoring solicitation calls for training and quality control, using an ordinary extension telephone in supervisors’ offices; employees were informed of the practice.
- The company also allowed personal calls and told employees personal calls would not be monitored except as needed to determine whether a call was personal or business.
- During a lunch hour, Watkins received a personal call from a friend and discussed a recent job interview and her interest in leaving for another employer.
- Without Watkins’s knowledge, her supervisor, Martha Little, listened in on the extension phone and heard at least part of the conversation; Little reported it to her supervisor, Diane Wright.
- Watkins was confronted about leaving and was fired the next day after an argument regarding the monitored call.
- Watkins sued under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520) for unlawful interception, and also asserted a Communications Act claim; the district court granted summary judgment to Berry, Little, and Wright on Title III and ruled for defendants on the other claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Watkins consented under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) to monitoring of her personal call beyond the brief listening needed to determine the call’s nature.
2. Whether the interception fell within the “business extension”/ordinary course of business exception in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a) when a supervisor continued listening after it was apparent the call was personal.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper given disputes about the scope of consent and whether the monitoring was in the ordinary course of business.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed summary judgment for Berry, Little, and Wright on the Title III claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that a factfinder could conclude Watkins did not consent to continued monitoring of the substance of a personal call.
- The court held that continued monitoring of a personal call, once its personal nature is apparent, may fall outside the “ordinary course of business” required for the business extension exception.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the Communications Act claim and affirmed judgment in favor of South Central Bell.

## Legal Principles

- Title III consent may be limited in scope; awareness that some business-call monitoring occurs does not equal blanket consent to monitoring personal calls.
- Where an employer’s policy permits only brief listening to classify calls as business or personal, continued interception of personal call content may exceed any consent.
- The business extension exception may apply to ordinary extension telephones, but only when the interception occurs in the ordinary course of the employer’s business and is tied to legitimate business purposes and routine practices.
- A personal call may retain Title III protections even if an initial, limited interception to determine call type is permissible.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employer’s announced monitoring policy can limit both employee consent and the reach of the ordinary-course-of-business exception; monitoring the substance of a personal call after it is recognized as personal may violate Title III, making summary judgment for the employer improper.


Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983)