Massachusetts Workplace Recording Laws

Massachusetts workplace recording law requires that all parties know a recording is happening. Secret recording at work is a felony under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, punishable by up to five years in state prison and a $10,000 fine; only the statute's lesser disclosure and possession offenses carry misdemeanor-tier house of correction terms.

Massachusetts workplace recording law is among the harshest in the country. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, any secret recording in the workplace is a felony. Employees who secretly record meetings with supervisors face the same criminal charges as someone who wiretaps a phone line. Employers who secretly monitor employee conversations face the same penalties. Secretly recording a workplace conversation carries up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine, with no misdemeanor alternative for that offense. Related offenses like disclosure and possession-with-intent carry a lesser house-of-correction penalty.

This guide covers what employees and employers need to know about recording in Massachusetts workplaces in 2026, including the rules for monitoring, the recent court rulings that affect workplace recordings, and the interaction between state wiretap law and federal labor protections.

The Core Rule: No Secret Workplace Recording

What the Law Says

Section 99 of the Massachusetts wiretap statute makes it a crime to secretly record any wire or oral communication. The word "secretly" is the operative term. If all parties to a workplace conversation know that recording is happening, the recording is legal. If the recording is hidden from any participant, it is a felony.

This applies equally to:

• Employees who record without telling their supervisors or coworkers
• **Employers** who record without telling their employees
• Third parties such as contractors, consultants, or visitors who record without disclosure

What Employees Cannot Do

Massachusetts employees cannot legally:

• Secretly record a meeting with a supervisor, HR representative, or manager
• Hide a phone or recorder in a pocket, bag, or desk drawer to capture workplace conversations
• Use a wearable device (smartwatch, AI pin, smart glasses) to secretly record interactions
• Record coworkers without their knowledge, even to document alleged misconduct
• Record phone calls with clients, customers, or business partners without disclosure

Each of these actions is a felony. It does not matter that the employee may have had good reasons for making the recording. The statute contains no exception for employees documenting harassment, discrimination, or unsafe conditions through secret recording.

What Employers Cannot Do

Massachusetts employers face the same restrictions:

• Secretly monitoring employee phone calls violates Section 99
• Hidden audio recording devices in offices, break rooms, or common areas violate the statute
• Covert audio surveillance of employee conversations is a felony
• Secret recording of job interviews or termination meetings violates the law

Employers may monitor and record employee activity, but only when employees are informed that monitoring is occurring. The monitoring cannot be secret.

How to Legally Record in the Workplace

Open Recording by Employees

An employee who wants to record a workplace conversation must follow these steps:

1. Announce the recording before any substantive conversation begins. A clear statement like "I am going to record this meeting" is sufficient.
2. Place the recording device in plain view so all participants can see it.
3. Allow participants the opportunity to object. Under Massachusetts law, they do not need to consent, but they must be aware. If someone objects, they can choose to leave the conversation.
4. Do not start recording before the announcement. Even a few seconds of recording before disclosure can violate the statute.

The other party does not need to agree to the recording. Massachusetts law targets secrecy, not consent. If a supervisor tells an employee "I do not want you to record this meeting," but the employee records openly anyway, the recording does not violate Section 99. However, the employee may face separate disciplinary consequences for violating a workplace policy.

Employer Monitoring Programs

Employers who want to monitor employee communications must:

• Provide written notice to employees about monitoring practices, ideally in the employee handbook
• Post visible signage near monitored areas indicating that recording or monitoring is occurring
• Include monitoring disclosures in employment agreements
• Limit audio monitoring to business-related purposes when possible
• Never secretly record employee conversations in break rooms, restrooms, or private areas

Video surveillance without audio is subject to less stringent requirements than audio monitoring. An employer can install visible security cameras that record only video without triggering Section 99. However, the moment those cameras capture audio of employee conversations, the wiretap statute applies.

The 2025 Simpson Ruling: A Game-Changer for Workplace Cases

What the Court Decided

In Simpson v. Boston Public Health Commission (2025), a Massachusetts Superior Court judge issued a ruling with significant implications for workplace recording disputes. The court held that recordings obtained in violation of the wiretap statute may be admissible as evidence in civil cases.

The judge reasoned that while Section 99 explicitly bars illegally obtained recordings from criminal trials, the statute contains no equivalent prohibition for civil proceedings. This means that in employment disputes such as discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination lawsuits, a secretly recorded conversation could potentially be introduced as evidence even though making the recording was a felony.

What This Means for Employees

The Simpson ruling creates a paradox for Massachusetts employees:

• Making a secret workplace recording is still a felony carrying up to 5 years in prison
• The criminal penalties and civil liability under Section 99 still apply
• But the recording itself might be admissible in a civil employment lawsuit

Employment attorneys continue to advise against making unauthorized workplace recordings. The criminal and civil risks far outweigh the potential evidentiary benefit. An employee who secretly records a supervisor making discriminatory statements faces felony charges for the recording, even if the recording could theoretically be used in a discrimination lawsuit.

What This Means for Employers

For employers, the Simpson ruling underscores the importance of proper conduct in all workplace interactions. Even if an employee makes an illegal recording, the contents of that recording could surface in civil litigation. Employers should:

• Train managers and supervisors to conduct themselves professionally in every interaction
• Assume that any workplace conversation could be documented, whether legally or not
• Address employee complaints promptly through proper channels to reduce the motivation for secret recording

Federal Labor Law and Recording Policies

The NLRA and No-Recording Policies

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees' rights to engage in "protected concerted activity," which includes discussing wages, working conditions, and organizing with coworkers. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has addressed the intersection of recording policies and labor rights in several key decisions.

The NLRB's current standard, established in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), requires the Board to evaluate whether a facially neutral workplace rule, including a no-recording policy, would tend to chill employees' exercise of Section 7 rights. Under this framework, an employer must demonstrate a legitimate and substantial business justification that outweighs the burden on employees' rights. A blanket prohibition on all workplace recording is difficult to justify under this standard because it would deter employees from documenting wage violations, unsafe conditions, or other matters that are the core of protected concerted activity.

NLRB General Counsel Memo 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) rescinded roughly thirty prior General Counsel memoranda, including GC 23-02 on electronic monitoring of employees, signaling that the General Counsel's office will pursue fewer cases against such policies. A GC memo cannot itself overturn Board precedent, so Stericycle remains the controlling legal standard for evaluating no-recording policies until the Board revisits it, but GC 25-05 is a substantive enforcement-priority shift, not mere housekeeping.

Lawful Employer Recording Policies

An employer recording policy in Massachusetts should:

• Reference the Massachusetts wiretap statute and explain that secret recording is a felony
• Clarify that open recording (where all parties are aware) is not prohibited by state law, though the employer may restrict it as a matter of company policy
• Avoid language so broad that it could be interpreted as prohibiting protected concerted activity
• Explain the employer's own monitoring practices with specificity
• Be reviewed by legal counsel familiar with both Massachusetts wiretap law and NLRA requirements

Whistleblower Protections

Massachusetts has whistleblower protections under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 185. Employees who report illegal activity by their employer are protected from retaliation. However, the whistleblower statute does not override the wiretap statute. An employee cannot claim whistleblower protection as a defense to felony wiretap charges for making a secret recording.

The proper channel for documenting workplace misconduct is through the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office or other appropriate agencies, not through secret recording.

Workplace Video Surveillance

Employer Security Cameras

Massachusetts employers commonly use video surveillance for security purposes. The rules depend on whether the cameras capture audio:

• Silent video cameras in common areas (lobbies, hallways, parking lots) are generally permitted
• Video cameras with audio must comply with Section 99. Employees must know about the audio recording.
• Cameras in private areas such as restrooms, changing rooms, and lactation rooms are prohibited regardless of whether they capture audio
• Cameras aimed at union activity or protected concerted activity may violate the NLRA

Employers should post visible signage wherever security cameras are installed, indicating the presence of video surveillance. If cameras capture audio, the signage should specifically note that audio is being recorded.

Employee Use of Body Cameras and Wearables

Some employers issue body cameras or wearable recording devices to employees. In Massachusetts, these devices trigger Section 99 whenever they capture audio of conversations. Employers who issue such devices must:

• Train employees on when and how to disclose that the device is recording
• Build disclosure procedures into standard operating protocols
• Ensure customers, clients, and other non-employees are informed when audio recording occurs
• Maintain records of disclosure practices for compliance purposes

Remote Work and Virtual Meeting Recording

Recording Remote Work Communications

The shift to remote and hybrid work has introduced new recording considerations. Massachusetts employees working from home are still subject to Section 99 when recording work-related calls and video conferences. The rules apply regardless of the employee's physical location within Massachusetts.

Employers who implement call recording for remote teams must:

• Notify all participants before recording begins
• Use platform features that alert participants to recording (such as Zoom's recording notification)
• Establish written policies about when and why remote calls will be recorded
• Ensure recording policies apply equally to in-office and remote workers

AI Meeting Assistants in the Workplace

AI transcription tools are increasingly common in Massachusetts workplaces. Tools like Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, and Microsoft Copilot can automatically record and transcribe meetings. Under Massachusetts law:

• Employees must inform all meeting participants before activating AI transcription
• Employers who deploy AI recording tools organization-wide must notify all employees
• The AI tool's automated notification (such as a bot joining the call) does not substitute for verbal disclosure
• Employers should establish clear policies about AI recording tool usage and data retention

Penalties for Illegal Workplace Recording

Criminal Consequences

Secretly recording a workplace conversation is always a felony with no misdemeanor plea option. Possession-with-intent and disclosure are lesser offenses under the statute, punishable only by a house of correction term.

Civil Liability

Under Section 99 Q, victims of illegal workplace recording can pursue:

• Liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000 minimum
• Actual damages if they exceed the liquidated amount
• Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs

For ongoing workplace surveillance violations, the per-day calculation can produce significant damage awards. An employer who secretly records audio in a break room for six months could face $18,000 in liquidated damages per affected employee.

Massachusetts Recording Laws by Topic

Phone Call Recording | Audio Recording | Video Recording | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras

Back to Massachusetts Recording Laws

More Massachusetts Recording Topics

• Massachusetts Biometric Privacy Laws
• Surveillance Camera Laws

More Massachusetts Laws

• Massachusetts AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Massachusetts Dashcam Laws
• Massachusetts Data Privacy Laws
• Massachusetts Deepfake Laws
• Massachusetts Employee Monitoring Laws
• Massachusetts GPS Tracking Laws
• Massachusetts Police Bodycam Laws
• Massachusetts Smart Glasses Recording Laws