Privacy of Employee Records

6.4: Privacy of Employee Records
1. Objective: Determine what ethical issue(s) are associated with a
particular handling or use of employee records and whether the
action is justified or a violation of the employee’s privacy
Although privacy is an important value that ought to be protected, there are many
instances in which other persons and organizations are fully justified in having personal
information about others and thereby in intruding into their private lives. The task of
justifying a right of privacy, then, consists not only in demonstrating the value of privacy,
but also in determining which intrusions into our private lives are justified and
developing effective policies governing these intrusions. 51

6.4.1: Ethical Issues with Records
Among the ethical issues to be addressed in developing the case for a right of privacy in
employee records, and then in formulating a company privacy protection plan for these
records, are the following:
1. The kind of information that is collected.
2. The use to which the information is put.
3. The persons within a company who have access to the information.
4. The disclosure of the information to persons outside the company.
5. The means used to gain the information.
6. The steps taken to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information.
7. The access that employees have to information about themselves.
The first three issues are closely related, because the justification for an employer’s
possessing any particular kind of information depends, at least in part, on the purpose
for which the information is gathered. Some information is simply of no conceivable use
in company decision making and constitutes a gratuitous invasion of employee privacy.
It is more often the case, however, that an employer has a need or an interest that
provides some justification for intruding into the private lives of employees. An invasion
of employee privacy is justified, however, only when the information is used for the
intended purpose by the individuals who are responsible for making the relevant
decisions.
Companies are generally justified in maintaining medical records on employees in order
to administer benefit plans, for example, and to monitor occupational health and safety.
If these are the purposes for which a company gathers this kind of information, then it
follows that

1. only medical information that is essential for these purposes can be justifiably
collected,
2. only those persons who are responsible for administering the benefit plans or
monitoring the health and safety of employees are justified in having access to
the information, and
3. these persons must use the information only for the intended purposes.
6.4.2: Justifying a Purpose
Obviously, the notion of a justifying purpose plays a critical role in determining the exact
scope of the right of privacy in employment. There is considerable room for
disagreement on the questions of whether any given purpose is a legitimate one for a
business firm to pursue, whether a certain kind of information is essential for the pursuit
of a particular purpose, and whether the information is in fact being used for the
intended purpose. Companies have an interest and, indeed, an obligation to ensure that
employees are capable of performing physically demanding work and are not subjected
to undue risk, for example. The purposes for which Henry Ford created the Sociological
Department, however, went beyond this concern to include a paternalistic regard for the
general welfare of his employees, which is not a legitimate purpose. Even to the extent
that the work of the inspectors from the Ford Motor Company was justified by a
legitimate purpose, there could still be an objection to the excessive amount of
information they sought. Information about the handling of finances, church attendance,
and eating and drinking habits is more than the company needed to know.
Determining the purpose for which information is being used can raise difficult questions
about intentions. A controversy was sparked in 1980, for example, when it became
publicly known that the DuPont Company was routinely screening black applicants at a
plant in New Jersey for signs of sickle-cell anemia. The company asserted that the
purpose for conducting the screening was to protect black workers, because carriers of
the disease, who are mostly black, were thought to be more vulnerable to certain
chemicals used at the plant. Such a purpose is arguably legitimate, but some critics of
DuPont charged that the company was actually using genetic screening for another
purpose, namely, to prevent liability suits and to avoid having to protect workers from
dangerous chemicals. 52
Is there any way in which the notion of a justifying purpose can be clarified so that such
disagreements can be resolved?
One possibility is to specify the conditions necessary for a business to conduct normal
operations. In order to do this, a company must be able to assess the suitability of
applicants for employment, supervise their work-related behavior, administer fringe-
benefit plans, and so on. In addition, employers must be able to acquire the information
necessary for complying with legal requirements about taxes, social security,
discrimination, health and safety, and the like. As a result, employers are justified in
asking potential employees about their educational background, past employment, and
so on, but not, for example, about their marital status because this information is not
necessary in order to make a decision about hiring. Once employees are hired, a

company may have a need to inquire about marital status in order to determine eligibility
for medical benefits, but only if the employee in question chooses to participate in a
medical insurance plan. Even then, this information should be used only for the purpose
of determining eligibility for medical benefits.
Joseph R. DesJardins suggests that questions about the extent of the right of privacy in
the workplace can be settled by appealing to a contract model of the
employer–employee relationship. 53

6.4.3: Disclosure to Outsiders

The fourth issue—concerning the disclosure of personal information to persons outside a
company—arises because of the practice, once very common, of employers sharing the content of
personnel files with landlords, lending agencies, subsequent employers, and other inquiring persons
without the consent of the employees involved.
Even when there is a legitimate purpose that would justify these various parties having
the information, it can be argued that an employer has no right to provide it because the
employer is justified in collecting and using information only for purposes connected
with the employer–employee relationship. What is morally objectionable about an
employer’s disclosing personal information to an outside party, in other words, is not
necessarily that the outside party is not justified in having it but that the employer has no
justification for giving it out.