George Allen, Sr. v. Baptist Village, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 07-10961 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
April 11, 2008
________________________
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00051-CV-5
GEORGE ALLEN, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BAPTIST VILLAGE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 11, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The overwhelming evidence in this summary judgment record establishes
that the plaintiff was fired from his position because of the undisputed evidence
that he was tapping into the telephone lines of the residents and conducting
extensive personal telephone calls thereon, all in violation of explicit company
policies, and probably also in violation of the law. Because this legitimate business
reason is so clearly the sole cause of plaintiff’s termination, we can readily
pretermit other issues relating to the discrimination and retaliation claims,
including the timeliness of the EEOC charge and the existence vel non of a prima
facie case.
Plaintiff also appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
rejecting plaintiff’s claims under the federal wiretapping statute and Georgia’s
wiretapping statute. Both claims assert that defendant violated the two statutes by
intercepting his telephone calls by video and audio surveillance devices. With
respect to these two claims, we need address only one issue that is dispositive of
both claims. We readily conclude that plaintiff had no objective expectation of
privacy and no objective expectation that his conversations would not be
intercepted. Plaintiff was intentionally tapping into someone else’s telephone line,
and conducting extensive personal telephone calls thereon, in violation of express
company policies, and probably in violation of the law. As a matter of common
2
sense, no reasonable person could expect any degree of privacy during
conversations had upon telephone lines which plaintiff had no right to be using.
Any reasonable person would expect that such surreptitious and improper use
might be detected and might be recorded for the purpose of eliminating such
improper use and exacting appropriate discipline.1
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
1
Moreover, the Georgia law claim is foreclosed by Elmore v. Atlanta Zayre, Inc.,
341 S.E.2d 905 (Ga.Ct.App. 1986).
3