LaPriel B. James v. Newspaper Agency Corporation
591 F.2d 579
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Case Number 77-1981
Before Circuit Judge McWilliams, Circuit Judge McKay, and Circuit Judge Logan
Decided on January 22, 1979

Relevancy of the case: Interception of wire and oral communication with consent at the workplace during the ordinary course of business

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
• The Federal Wiretapping Statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2511

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant agency and worked in the accounting/credit department. She resigned due to poor health and dissatisfaction with her job.
• She filed a suit against the defendant in the trial court, claiming discrimination based on sex and unlawful interception of wire and oral communications.
• Evidence proved that the employees were advised in advance of the installation of the monitoring device in writing. Along with this, there was a lack of evidence about the discrimination. As a result, the trial court decided in the defendant’s favour, and the plaintiff appealed against the court’s order.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The plaintiff’s counsel asserted the claims made in the trial court hearing and criticised the court’s order.

Opinion of the Bench

• Installation of the machine was not surreptitious considering the knowledge of the management and employees and the purpose of installation, i.e., ordinary course of business.
• While the majority agreed on the lack of evidence to prove sex discrimination, Judge McKay dissented that the burden was on the defendant company to dismiss any such allegations.

Final Decision

• The majority of the bench affirmed the trial court’s judgment.