How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask socrateaser Your Own Question

socrateaser
socrateaser, Lawyer
Category: California Employment Law
Satisfied Customers: 33378
Experience:  Retired (mostly)
Type Your California Employment Law Question Here...
socrateaser is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Can California employers lawfully search contents of employee

Resolved Question:

Can California employers lawfully search contents of employee person, including but not limited to clothing, bags/purses/packs/letters/vehicles for any reason as long as the search is conducted on company property, to include the parking lot?
With respect to any searches of person, ("pat-down" or "frisking") a same-sex Company Representative is available to conduct any searches of male/female employees.
If bodily "pat-down" searches would be non-compliant with state/federal law, but other "extended property" searches such as bags and vehicles are compliant, is it lawful to require that the contents of pockets to articles of clothing (bodily property) be displayed?
Regardless of the law defining this matter, are employers RESPONSIBLE for the contents of employee persons, bags, cars, etc...?
Example A: The use/possession of any illegal substances (drugs) while on a break or otherwise on company property.
Example B: The use/possession of any illegal electronic jamming equipment, firearms, dangerous chemicals (poisons), etc...
Thank you very much!
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: California Employment Law
Expert:  socrateaser replied 2 years ago.

Can California employers lawfully search contents of employee person, including but not limited to clothing, bags/purses/packs/letters/vehicles for any reason as long as the search is conducted on company property, to include the parking lot?


A: First, there is a huge difference between government and private employers where this issue is concerned. Government is restricted by the U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure -- whereas private employers are not restricted. I will assume a private employer here.

 

There is practically no California law on this subject. The small amount that exists, suggests that an employer that notifies employees in advance that their possessions or persons may be subject to search, can do so, because by providing notice, the employee no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy -- except, for example in locations such as dressing/locker and restrooms, where a clear expectation of privacy exists.

 

So, the issue must be resolved approximately as that the employer can search, and the employee can quit and thereby avoid a search. A physicial search of a locked vehicle, would almost certainly be unlawful, because the employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle, as long as it is locked on employer property. Similarly, a locked box or bag would be protected, but ultimately, the employer can demand that the employee open the bag, and if the employee refuses, then the employer can terminate the employee. Thus, the employee's rights are secured, but so are the employers.

 

Concerning a patdown or other body search, once again, the issue is one of whether the employee has notice that he or she will be subjected to a search. If no, then it's arguable that a patdown is probably beyond the employer's authority -- however, the issue always resolves as being a choice between submitting to a search and quiting one's job or be fired for refusing. It's not a great choice but it is a choice, and the employee and employer can each make their choice, without the court's interference.


With respect to any searches of person, ("pat-down" or "frisking") a same-sex Company Representative is available to conduct any searches of male/female employees.

If bodily "pat-down" searches would be non-compliant with state/federal law, but other "extended property" searches such as bags and vehicles are compliant, is it lawful to require that the contents of pockets to articles of clothing (bodily property) be displayed?

 

A: Same answer as above. You are characterizing the choice of employer demands and employee must comply. But, the real choice is that employer demands, and employee can quit or refuse and potentially be fired. So, you have to consider the full range of options before considering the answer. It's not as cut and dry as may first appear.


Regardless of the law defining this matter, are employers RESPONSIBLE for the contents of employee persons, bags, cars, etc...?


A: If the employer provides storage for an employee's possessions, then that would bring responsibility on the employer as a "bailee," unless the employer notifies employees in advance that it won't be responsible for possessions stored on employer premises. However, in a job description where it's impossible to perform the job without storing personal possessions (car keys, wallet, purse, etc.), then the employer would likely be unable to waive liability, because the employee is actually storing possession for the employer's benefit, rather than for the employees.


Example A: The use/possession of any illegal substances (drugs) while on a break or otherwise on company property.


A: This issue has been in part addressed by the California Supreme Court -- to wit: "

Nothing in the text or history of the voter-approved California Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5, indicates the voters intended to articulate any policy concerning marijuana in the employment context, let alone a fundamental public policy requiring employers to accommodate marijuana use by employees." Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, 42 Cal. 4th 920 (1/24/2008). In other words, an employer can terminate an employee for using/possessing marijuana, even though it is being legally used under California law, because it is still illegal under federal law.

As to the employer being responsible for the employee's possession of marijuana, illegal drugs, toxins, etc., the answer lies in to whose benefit does the use or possession of the item principally inure. If to the employer, then the employer can be held vicariously liable, because use or possession is within the employee's scope of employment (aka, "respondeat superior"). If to the employee, then the employer would not be liable, because use or possession is outside the scope of employment.

Example B: The use/possession of any illegal electronic jamming equipment, firearms, dangerous chemicals (poisons), etc...

A: See above.

Hope this helps.

NOTICE: My goal here is to educate others about the law. I am always available to answer your follow-up questions after you click Accept – however, if you do not click Accept, the website gets paid, and I receive nothing. This is true, even if you are on a subscription plan. So please click Accept, so that I will be able to continue to provide this service for others in the future.


And, if you need to contact me again, please put my user id on the title line of your question (“To Socrateaser”), and the system will send me an alert. Thanks!



socrateaser, Lawyer
Satisfied Customers: 33378
Experience: Retired (mostly)
socrateaser and other California Employment Law Specialists are ready to help you

JustAnswer in the News:

 
 
 
Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... Justanswer.com.
JustAnswer.com...has seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like justanswer.com/legal
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.
 
 
 

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
< Last | Next >
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
  • My Expert was fast and seemed to have the answer to my taser question at the tips of her fingers. Communication was excellent. I left feeling confident in her answer. Eric Redwood City, CA
  • I am very pleased with JustAnswer as a place to go for divorce or criminal law knowledge and insight. Michael Wichita, KS
  • PaulMJD helped me with questions I had regarding an urgent legal matter. His answers were excellent. Three H. Houston, TX
  • Anne was extremely helpful. Her information put me in the right direction for action that kept me legal, possible saving me a ton of money in the future. Thank you again, Anne!! Elaine Atlanta, GA
  • It worked great. I had the facts and I presented them to my ex-landlord and she folded and returned my deposit. The 50 bucks I spent with you solved my problem. Tony Apopka, FL
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C. Freshfield, Liverpool, UK
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • LawTalk

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    912
    I have 30 years of experience in the practice of law, including employment law and discrimination law.
< Last | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/LA/LawTalk/2012-6-6_17379_LawTalk.64x64.JPG LawTalk's Avatar

    LawTalk

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    912
    I have 30 years of experience in the practice of law, including employment law and discrimination law.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/MU/multistatelaw/2011-11-27_173951_Tinaglamourshotworkglow102011.64x64.jpg Tina's Avatar

    Tina

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    827
    JD, 16 years experience & recognized by ABA for excellence in employment law.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/PI/PIExpert/2012-7-1_152453_Attorney.64x64.jpg Brandon, Esq.'s Avatar

    Brandon, Esq.

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    320
    Has received a certificate of recognition from the California State Senate for his outstanding legal service.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/PH/phoenixrising119/2012-7-26_11214_043.64x64.jpg melissamesq's Avatar

    melissamesq

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    47
    Represent clients to maximum recovery in employment cases.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/IG/Iggy1001/2013-11-20_23344_JApic.64x64.jpg Joseph's Avatar

    Joseph

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    3098
    Extensive experience representing employees and management
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/JK/jkiani22/2013-11-18_15348_JacobKiani1copy2.64x64.jpg jkiani22's Avatar

    jkiani22

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    20
    Attorney
  • /img/opt/shirt.png Legal Counsel's Avatar

    Legal Counsel

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    32
    California Licensed Attorney- 29 years- Wages, Hours, Overtime, Discrimination, Wrongful Termination.