In the case of “Helisek v. Dearborn Public School,” 2008, Michael Helisek decided to file a lawsuit against his employer for violating his privacy rights. His privacy was violated because Principal Gail Shenkman believed he was stealing from the boys locker room. She claims it occurred on more than one occasion, so she had the director of security to install video cameras in Mr. Helisek office. When a student came into Mr. Helisek office one day, he noticed two hidden cameras located in the ceiling. This not only left Mr. Helisek very upset because he didn’t know anything about the cameras, but felt like they violated his privacy rights (The United States, 2008). According to Ball, “organization's watch employees primarily to protect their assets, although the nature and intensity of surveillance say much about how a company views its employees” (“2010,” p. 87).
Unfortunately, many employees believe surveillance in the workplace, affects their creativity, motivation, work culture, and productivity because they’re constantly being watched (Ball, 2010). In fact, this is the reason why Helisek felt as though his privacy was being violated. He felt there wasn’t a need for him to be monitored because of some theft that happens in the boys locker room. Mr. Helisek didn’t understand how…show more content… Department of Education survey revealed 86 percent of public schools nationwide reported that one or more serious violent incidents, thefts, or other crimes had occurred at their school, for a total of roughly 2.2 million crimes” (“2016,” para. 2). Although this seems to be a growing trend, it still wasn’t a justifiable cause for Principal Shenkman to have cameras installed in Helisek office. She simply could’ve had them installed outside of the locker room, but that still wouldn’t have solved anything. In fact, some school administrators still believe that if cameras are installed, then the majority of students will stop committing theft and
