Rania V. Sedhom is managing partner at Sedhom Law Group
For the past month or more, it was impossible to turn on the news or read a newsfeed without reference to Sean “Diddy” Combs.
Much of the testimony and surveillance footage involved in the high-profile federal case tried in New York City was fraught with details that are not for the faint of heart. For purposes of this article, the contents of the surveillance and telephone recordings are of no consequence.
The lessons the Diddy trial imparted to employers, including luxury brands, were related to video surveillance and conversation recordings.
Consent to being recorded was a point of contention during the trial. I am often asked about the parameters related to video and conversation recordings in the workplace.
Recordings are always ok if all parties consent to them. In the workplace, retailers use cameras, hidden or otherwise, to monitor interactions and minimize theft.
Luxury brands may also utilize cameras and video surveillance in offices, VIP areas, showrooms, and at each step of the creation process that culminates in their sought-after products.
Luxury brands may also need to record conversations that take place with combative customers, for HR matters or other reasons that may arise. The answer here is also that doing so is fine when all consent is given.
However, some states only require a single party to consent. That means that as long as one person involved in the conversation or other activity consents, the recording is permitted.
Of course, her consent was a point of contention in the trial. Single-party consent states include New York and New Jersey.
Luxury brands that wish to record video or audio of conversations or other activities in these states need only one party to the conversation or activity to consent. The consent can be received during employee onboarding as long as it is done properly.
In some states, such as California and Florida, participant consent is required; additionally, some states, like Florida, prohibit the use of hidden cameras. Even when consent is provided, the cameras must be visible.
In Texas, video recording in public places is permitted; however, penalties for unauthorized surveillance in private areas, such as dressing rooms, are imposed. To record in a method that does not comply with state law is a felony.
The moral of the story is that video surveillance and recording conversations if used properly, can be a vital tool for safety, mitigation of crime and other risks. However, obtaining recordings improperly or misusing the recordings can lead to adverse consequences, including your own trial.
Views shared are purely the author’s. Rania V. Sedhom is founding member and managing partner at the Sedhom Law Group, New York. Reach her at rsedhom@bespokelawfirm.com.