Earlier this month, a New Jersey lawsuit raised a question any remote worker might ask: what happens if your employer's AI wants to photograph you through your webcam every few minutes? Glennis Von Sander-Timinski says she was sacked after refusing exactly that.
Now a US privacy lawyer explains when a worker could sue over AI monitoring, and why the answer is rarely as simple as a $5,000 (£3,700) payout.
Ryan Johnson, Esq., FIP, a data privacy and AI governance attorney and the founder of The Technology Law Group, walked Tech Times through where the line sits.
What Does the New Jersey Lawsuit Claim?
As Tech Times UK reported earlier this month, Von Sander-Timinski had worked from home for Sutherland Healthcare Solutions since 2018, with positive performance reviews, according to court documents.
In August, the lawsuit says, the company told her it would use an AI system called Sentinel AI. The software would use her webcam to take a photo roughly every three minutes of the working day, about 160 photos in total.
She objected, the lawsuit says, because she feared the added pressure could trigger a flare-up of her lupus.
Her doctor then wrote to the company asking for the facial AI monitoring to be changed to be 'intermittent or less frequently as it is causing worsening of anxiety and flaring her Systemic Lupus Erythematosus', according to the lawsuit.
The company gave her three options, the lawsuit says: accept the monitoring, report to the workplace every day, or face termination.
Going back to the office would have meant a six-hour round trip from Atlantic County to the company's site in Clinton, New Jersey. She was dismissed on 8 September, after more than a decade with the company, which took over her previous employer's business in 2013.
Her lawyers accuse the company of failing to provide a reasonable accommodation. They told The Bergen Record that her employer 'failed to engage in the interactive process required under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination'. Those are the claims made in the lawsuit.
Is It Illegal for an Employer To Use AI To Monitor Employees?
Not by itself. Johnson put the core idea in one line: 'AI is the engine, not necessarily the cause of action.'
An employee generally cannot recover money just because an employer used AI-powered monitoring.
To win compensation, the employee has to show one of three things: the monitoring broke a specific law, it intruded into an area of privacy the law protects, or it caused a real injury such as lost wages, discriminatory treatment, or emotional harm.
That stays true even when an AI productivity score is the reason someone is disciplined or sacked.
In that case, Johnson said, the claim would usually come from discrimination, wage, or retaliation law, not from the use of AI itself.
A few US states, Illinois among them, have started to regulate AI in employment decisions directly. As he put it: 'There is no national schedule assigning a fixed dollar amount to workplace surveillance.'
Can You Sue Over Webcam Photos Taken Every Three Minutes?
There is 'ordinarily no automatic per-image payment', according to Johnson.
If the practice was clearly disclosed to employees, limited to working hours, run on an employer-owned device, and tied to a reasonable business purpose, the employee 'may recover nothing'.
A silent photograph also does not automatically count as a biometric scan or as an intercepted communication.
The picture changes when the camera works in secret, or when it captures a bedroom, family members, medical activity, or anything outside working hours.
Those facts could support a common-law intrusion claim. The money, though, would depend on evidence such as emotional distress, financial loss, how offensive the monitoring was, and how the employer behaved.
Johnson said there is no reliable national dollar range for that kind of claim.
Courts in California have recognised that employees can keep privacy interests at work. They have also upheld surveillance that was narrow, backed by a legitimate investigation, and did not actually record the employees.
Where Does the $5,000 (£3,700) Figure Come From?
In California, intentionally recording a confidential communication without the consent of everyone involved can support recovery of the greater of $5,000 (£3,700) per violation or three times the actual damages. The employee does not have to prove actual damages first.
But the conversation has to be one the people involved reasonably expected to stay private. A still webcam image would not automatically meet that test.
In Illinois, the Biometric Information Privacy Act, known as BIPA, lists $1,000 (£747) for a negligent violation and $5,000 (£3,700) for an intentional or reckless one, or actual damages if those are higher, plus legal fees and other relief.
Johnson stressed that these numbers are not automatic.
Illinois amended BIPA in 2024 so that repeated collection of one person's biometric data by the same method generally counts as a single violation for recovery purposes.
In April 2026, in Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., the Seventh Circuit held that the amendment applies to cases already pending and said damages remain up to the judge. That ruling binds federal courts in the Seventh Circuit, but it is a prediction of Illinois law, and the Illinois Supreme Court had not ruled on the question when Johnson wrote.
One more detail matters for webcams. BIPA expressly leaves out ordinary photographs.
A webcam image only becomes a possible BIPA problem when the system extracts or creates biometric information, such as a scan of face geometry, instead of just taking a picture.
What Have Workers Actually Won?
The best-known workplace examples involve fingerprints, not webcams.
In Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., employees used fingerprint scans to reach workplace computers and pay information.
The lawsuit said the company collected and sent that biometric data without the disclosures and written consent BIPA requires. The case settled for about $9.39 million (£7 million), which worked out to roughly $968 (£723) per class member.
In Rogers v. BNSF Railway Co., truck drivers said BNSF required fingerprint registration at Illinois rail facilities without following BIPA. A jury found 45,600 reckless or intentional violations, which first led to a $228 million (£170 million) judgment. The court later threw out the damages award and ordered a new damages trial. The parties then reached a $75 million (£56 million) class settlement.
Johnson was clear about what those sums were: 'Those headline amounts were class-wide recoveries, not individual payouts.' The cases worked because Illinois law sets specific notice, consent, retention, and disclosure rules and lets people sue directly.
He also explained why courts take biometrics so seriously: 'While a password can be changed after a breach, a fingerprint cannot.'
Which Other Laws Can Lead to Compensation?
Beyond BIPA and California's audio-recording law, Johnson named several other routes.
The federal Wiretap Act covers the intentional interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. A court may award the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, or $100 (£74) per day of violation or $10,000 (£7,400).
The award is discretionary. Federal law also generally allows interception when one party has consented, unless the purpose is criminal or tortious, though stricter state laws may apply.
A claimant generally has to show the interception happened at the same time as the communication.
The Stored Communications Act can apply when monitoring moves from watching work activity to knowingly accessing stored personal emails, cloud accounts, or other electronic communications without permission.
It allows actual damages and the violator's profits, states a minimum recovery of $1,000 (£747), and allows punitive damages for willful violations. Courts do not agree on whether actual damages must be proven first. The Fourth Circuit, for example, requires it.
Other claims come from how the monitoring results are used.
If productivity software wrongly marks working time as idle and that leads to unpaid wages, the Fair Labor Standards Act may allow recovery of unpaid minimum wage or overtime plus an equal amount in liquidated damages, unless the employer shows it acted in good faith.
Unpaid time that does not drop pay below minimum wage or trigger overtime is often handled under state wage laws instead.
If an AI score leads to intentional discrimination, Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act may allow back pay and other remedies.
Combined compensatory and punitive damages are capped between $50,000 (£37,000) and $300,000 (£224,000), depending on employer size. Race discrimination claims under Section 1981 do not have those caps.
What Makes an Employee's Case Stronger or Weaker?
The strongest cases involve monitoring that was never disclosed, or that went well past what the employer disclosed.
Audio, biometrics, personal accounts, intimate activity, and conduct inside the employee's home all raise the stakes. So do monitoring outside working hours, use of a personal device, sharing data with third parties, keeping it indefinitely, inaccurate productivity scores, and using the system to sack, discipline, or cut pay.
Evidence of lost money, documented distress, discriminatory impact, or an employer that ignored earlier complaints makes a claim more serious.
A case gets weaker when the employer gave clear advance notice, collected any consent the law requires, kept monitoring to company systems and work hours, documented a business reason, stayed away from private spaces and personal accounts, limited who could see the data, kept it for as short a time as possible, and did not rely on the monitoring as the only reason for an adverse decision.
Johnson summed it up with an image: 'A workplace-monitoring policy is a map rather than a blank check.'
A policy may tell employees the company monitors activity on a work laptop, but it does not automatically allow the company to record private conversations, scan facial geometry, capture family members in the home, or open personal accounts.
The closer an employer stays to the route it disclosed, the stronger its case. In his words: 'The further the technology travels beyond that route, the more likely the monitoring becomes legally actionable.'
How Common Is Workplace Monitoring, and Are the Rules Changing?
A 2023 survey by the American Psychological Association found that 51% of workers knew their employer used technology to monitor them.
Of those who had experienced monitoring, 56% said they typically felt tense or stressed at work. The findings show a link between electronic monitoring and workers' reported well-being, but they do not prove that monitoring caused those feelings.
Lawmakers in the US are starting to respond.
Maine has passed a law restricting employer surveillance, including audio and video monitoring in an employee's home, personal vehicle or property unless the job requires it. It also lets employees refuse requests to install surveillance-related data collection or transmission apps on personal devices.
New Jersey, where the lawsuit was filed, is considering its own bill. Senate Bill S4075 was introduced in May and was reported from the Senate Labor Committee on 1 October before going to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee.
It would regulate AI-based electronic monitoring tools and automated employment decision systems, require impact assessments and independent approval for covered systems, and restrict monitoring in private areas, during breaks or off-duty time, and in homes, personal vehicles or other property. As Tech Times reported on 8 October, it was not yet law.
These are general US examples and not legal advice. If you think your employer's monitoring crossed a line, speak to an employment or privacy lawyer where you live.
Attribution: Ryan Johnson, Esq., FIP, Data Privacy and AI Governance Attorney, Founder, The Technology Law Group. His comments are made in an individual capacity and not on behalf of any other organisation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is the New Jersey lawsuit about?The lawsuit involves an employee who was dismissed after refusing AI webcam monitoring by her employer.
- Is it illegal for an employer to use AI to monitor employees?Not by itself. An employee must show that the monitoring broke a specific law, intruded into protected privacy, or caused real injury.
- Can employees sue over webcam photos taken every three minutes?There is no automatic per-image payment. The legality depends on disclosure, business purpose, and privacy intrusion.
- What compensation can be sought under California law for unauthorized recording?California law allows recovery of $5,000 per violation or three times the actual damages for unauthorized recording of confidential communications.
- What is the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)?BIPA is an Illinois law that regulates the collection and use of biometric data, allowing for damages of $1,000 for negligent violations and $5,000 for intentional or reckless violations.
