Kentucky
Kentucky Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Kentucky's one-party consent law, KRS 526.020, permits employees to record any workplace conversation they participate in without telling the other parties. Employers can enforce no-recording policies and terminate employees who violate them, even when the recording breaks no law. Both rights coexist in Kentucky workplaces.
Kentucky's one-party consent framework under KRS 526.020 applies fully in the workplace. Employees can record conversations they participate in, and employers can implement surveillance systems in appropriate areas. However, workplace recording involves a tension between legal rights and employment policies that every Kentucky worker and business owner should understand.
This guide covers employee recording rights, employer surveillance authority, company policy considerations, and how workplace recordings function in employment disputes and legal proceedings.
Employee Rights to Record at Work
The Legal Foundation
Under KRS 526.020 and the definition of eavesdropping in KRS 526.010, any person in Kentucky can record a conversation they are participating in. This right does not disappear when you walk through the doors of your workplace.
As an employee, you can legally record:
- Meetings with your supervisor or manager
- Performance reviews and disciplinary discussions
- Conversations with HR representatives
- Discussions with coworkers
- Phone calls with clients or customers (when you are a participant)
- Training sessions you attend
- Interactions with executives or company leadership
What Employees Cannot Record
The one-party consent rule only permits recording conversations you are part of. As an employee, you cannot legally:
- Plant a recording device in a conference room and leave before a meeting begins
- Record conversations between coworkers that you are not part of
- Install software to capture your supervisor's phone calls without being on the call
- Hide a device in someone else's office to record their private conversations
These actions constitute eavesdropping under KRS 526.020 and are a Class D felony.
Company Recording Policies

The Legal vs. Policy Distinction
This is the most important concept in Kentucky workplace recording law: recording may be legal under state law but still violate company policy. Kentucky is an at-will employment state, which means employers can terminate employees for any reason that is not specifically prohibited by law.
An employer who discovers that an employee has been recording conversations can legally terminate that employee for violating a no-recording policy, even though the recording itself did not violate any criminal statute.
Common Company Recording Policies
Many Kentucky employers have policies that address workplace recording. These typically include:
- Complete prohibition: No audio or video recording on company premises without management approval
- Partial restriction: Recording allowed in some areas but prohibited in others (such as classified or proprietary areas)
- Notification requirement: Recording permitted only when all parties are informed
- Purpose-based restriction: Recording allowed for specific business purposes only
Policy Enforceability
Company recording policies are generally enforceable in Kentucky. Courts have upheld employer discipline for policy violations related to recording. However, there are important exceptions:
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protections: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) applies the Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) standard to evaluate workplace policies. Under Stericycle, a facially neutral no-recording policy is presumptively unlawful if it could reasonably be interpreted to chill employees' Section 7 rights to engage in protected concerted activity -- unless the employer demonstrates a legitimate justification that outweighs the policy's chilling effect. This replaced the more employer-friendly Boeing Co. standard. NLRB General Counsel Memo GC 25-05 (Feb. 2025) rescinded earlier guidance inconsistent with Stericycle (that memo is a housekeeping rescission, not a Boeing reinstatement). This applies to non-supervisory employees in the private sector. An employer's no-recording policy that chills employees from documenting workplace conditions, wages, or union activities may be found unlawful.
Whistleblower protections: Kentucky's whistleblower statute, KRS 61.102 (covering public employees) and KRS 338.121 (covering occupational safety complaints), protect employees who report violations of law. If an employee records evidence of illegal activity and is fired for the recording, a court might find the termination violated whistleblower protections.
Anti-retaliation provisions: Federal and state employment laws prohibit retaliation against employees who report discrimination, harassment, unsafe conditions, or other legal violations. Recording to document such violations may be protected activity under:
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (employment discrimination)
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act, KRS Chapter 344 (state employment discrimination)
- OSHA whistleblower protections (workplace safety)
Employer Surveillance Rights

Video Surveillance in the Workplace
Kentucky employers have broad authority to install video surveillance in work areas where employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Permissible locations include:
- Production floors and manufacturing areas
- Retail sales floors and customer areas
- Warehouse and storage areas
- Office common spaces and hallways
- Building entrances and exits
- Parking lots and loading docks
- Break rooms (more contested, but generally permitted)
Areas Where Surveillance Is Prohibited
Employers cannot install cameras in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy:
- Restrooms
- Locker rooms
- Changing areas
- Designated lactation rooms (protected under federal law)
- Private offices with closed doors (more nuanced, depends on circumstances)
Installing cameras in these areas could constitute voyeurism under KRS 531.090 and expose the employer to criminal liability and civil lawsuits.
Audio Surveillance by Employers
When employers add audio recording capabilities to surveillance systems, the eavesdropping laws in KRS Chapter 526 become directly relevant. An employer cannot record conversations between employees unless the employer (or an authorized representative) is a party to the conversation or has obtained consent from at least one participant.
A ceiling-mounted camera with a microphone that continuously records all conversations in an open office would violate KRS 526.020 if neither the employer nor a consenting participant is present for all recorded conversations.
Employees whose audio communications are unlawfully intercepted by employer surveillance can pursue claims under two tracks: the federal civil remedy in 18 U.S.C. 2520 (statutory damages of $100/day with a $10,000 minimum, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees), and the Kentucky common-law intrusion upon seclusion tort established in McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981). KRS 526.080 addresses forfeiture of recording devices and does not create a private civil remedy.
Employee Notification of Surveillance
Kentucky does not have a specific statute requiring employers to notify employees about video surveillance. However, notifying employees is considered best practice and provides several benefits:
- Reduces legal exposure for invasion of privacy claims
- Strengthens the argument that employees had no reasonable expectation of privacy in monitored areas
- Can serve as a deterrent for workplace misconduct
- Supports compliance with the NLRA and other federal requirements
Many employers include surveillance notices in employee handbooks, post visible signage in monitored areas, and address monitoring in the onboarding process.
Workplace Recording in Employment Disputes

Documenting Harassment and Discrimination
Recording can be a powerful tool for employees experiencing workplace harassment or discrimination. Kentucky courts and the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights accept lawfully obtained recordings as evidence in discrimination complaints.
Types of workplace misconduct that employees commonly record include:
- Sexual harassment (comments, propositions, hostile environment)
- Racial or ethnic harassment
- Age-based discrimination
- Disability-related discrimination
- Retaliation for reporting violations
- Hostile work environment behavior
Using Recordings in Legal Proceedings
Legally obtained workplace recordings are generally admissible in Kentucky courts and administrative proceedings. Under the Kentucky Rules of Evidence, the recording must be:
- Authenticated as a genuine and unaltered recording
- Relevant to the claims being made
- Not unfairly prejudicial relative to its probative value
Recordings are commonly used in:
- EEOC and Kentucky Commission on Human Rights complaints
- Wrongful termination lawsuits
- Workers' compensation disputes
- Unemployment insurance hearings
- Wage and hour disputes
- OSHA complaints
Recordings and Workers' Compensation
Kentucky employees involved in workers' compensation claims may find recordings valuable for documenting:
- Conversations about workplace conditions that contributed to injury
- Employer responses to reports of unsafe conditions
- Discussions about return-to-work restrictions
- Statements about the nature and cause of workplace injuries
Under KRS Chapter 342 (Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act), administrative law judges consider all relevant evidence, including lawfully obtained recordings.
Remote Work and Recording
Monitoring Remote Employees
With the growth of remote work in Kentucky, employer monitoring has expanded to include:
- Screen monitoring and screenshot capture software
- Keystroke logging
- Email and messaging surveillance
- Video call recording
- GPS tracking for field employees
- Productivity monitoring software
Kentucky does not have a specific statute addressing remote employee monitoring. The general principles of one-party consent still apply to any audio recording. Video-only monitoring of an employee's computer screen is not governed by the eavesdropping statutes.
The Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act (KCDPA)
The Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act, which took effect January 1, 2026, focuses on consumer data privacy rather than employer-employee relationships. However, employers that process personal data of Kentucky consumers through customer-facing operations must comply with KCDPA requirements for data transparency and consumer rights.
Practical Guidelines for Kentucky Employees
Before You Record
Consider these factors before recording in the workplace:
- Check your company's recording policy. Review the employee handbook and any signed agreements.
- Understand the legal standard. You can only record conversations you are part of.
- Consider your purpose. Recording to document illegal activity or harassment carries stronger legal protection than recording for personal reasons.
- Preserve the recording properly. Keep the original file unaltered. Document the date, time, location, and participants.
- Consult an attorney. If you are considering recording as part of a legal strategy, speak with an employment lawyer first.
After You Record
- Store recordings securely and privately
- Do not share recordings on social media or with uninvolved parties
- Do not edit, splice, or alter recordings
- If you plan to use the recording in legal proceedings, consult an attorney about proper preservation and disclosure
Practical Guidelines for Kentucky Employers
Developing a Recording Policy
A legally sound recording policy for a Kentucky workplace should:
- Be clearly written and included in the employee handbook
- Explain the scope of what is and is not permitted
- Address both employee recording and employer surveillance
- Avoid overly broad language that could violate NLRA Section 7 rights
- Include exceptions for legally protected activity (reporting discrimination, safety violations, etc.)
- Be consistently enforced across all employees and management levels
Implementing Surveillance
When implementing workplace surveillance:
- Never place cameras in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas
- Post visible signage in monitored areas
- Include monitoring disclosures in employee handbooks and onboarding materials
- Limit audio recording to situations where one-party consent is satisfied
- Secure surveillance footage and limit access to authorized personnel
- Establish retention policies for recorded footage
More Kentucky Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism and Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant Recording | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
Back to Kentucky Recording Laws
More Kentucky Recording Topics
More Kentucky Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record my boss in Kentucky?
Yes. Under Kentucky one-party consent law (KRS 526.020), you can legally record any conversation you participate in, including meetings with your boss, performance reviews, and disciplinary discussions. However, if your employer has a no-recording policy, violating it could result in termination even though the recording is legal.
Can my employer fire me for recording at work in Kentucky?
Potentially yes. Kentucky is an at-will employment state, so employers can terminate employees for violating company recording policies. Exceptions may apply if you were recording evidence of illegal activity, harassment, or discrimination, which could be protected under whistleblower or anti-retaliation laws.
Can my employer record me on camera at work in Kentucky?
Employers can use video surveillance in common work areas like production floors, retail spaces, hallways, and parking lots. They cannot install cameras in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas. Adding audio recording to surveillance triggers one-party consent requirements under KRS 526.020.
Can I use a workplace recording as evidence in a lawsuit in Kentucky?
Yes, if the recording was made legally under one-party consent. Workplace recordings are generally admissible in employment discrimination cases, wrongful termination suits, workers' compensation hearings, and other legal proceedings. The recording must be authenticated and relevant to the case.
Does my employer have to tell me about security cameras at work in Kentucky?
Kentucky does not have a specific statute requiring employers to notify employees about video surveillance. However, providing notice through signage and handbook disclosures is considered best practice and strengthens the employer's legal position.
Updates
Corrected four misrouted Kentucky statute links on this page: the whistleblower-protection citation (KRS 61.102), the occupational-safety-retaliation citation (KRS 338.121), and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act citation (KRS Chapter 344) now point to their actual sections instead of unrelated pesticide-licensing and workers'-compensation pages; the at-will-employment reference, which is a common-law doctrine rather than a codified statute, no longer carries a misleading statute-style link.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 526: EAVESDROPPING AND RELATED OFFENSES
§ 526.020EavesdroppingIn forcecited in 20 of our articles
(1) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any device to eavesdrop, whether or not he is present at the time. (2) Eavesdropping is a Class D felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Basham v. Commonwealth (1984) held wiretap evidence obtained under a valid federal order is admissible in Kentucky, though it noted no state law authorizes electronic surveillance by Kentucky police. Brock v. Commonwealth (1997) held the exclusionary rule reaches only constitutional violations, so a private recording was not suppressed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Springer v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 1999, 998 S.W.2d 439)✓A neighbor used a police scanner to tape cordless calls from the victim's home, and detectives played it to induce Eades to confess; the court held the federal wiretap act and Kentucky's eavesdropping statutes did not bar using it against someone who was not a party to the calls.
- Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Kentucky Supreme Court 2004, 151 S.W.3d 781)✓Wal-Mart secretly ran about forty hours of audio and video surveillance of employees in a store claims area; the court did not decide whether that violated KRS 526.020, holding instead that the employees' statutory claim failed for lack of damages caused by the recording itself.
- Brock v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 1997, 947 S.W.2d 24)✓Brock, claiming self-defense, was kept from using a private tape of the victim's mother saying her son had gone to kill him; the court held that even assuming the tape violated KRS 526.020, the exclusionary rule reaches only state action, so suppression was not required.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, Kentucky Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Disputes
§ 526.010DefinitionIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
The following definition applies in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: "Eavesdrop" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Major v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2006, 177 S.W.3d 700)“…the activity was appropriate under Kentucky Criminal Law, KRS 526.010; thus not in violation of his Fourth Am…”
- Springer v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 1999, 998 S.W.2d 439)“…ions, is not precluded by 18 U.S.C. § 2510 , et seq. and KRS 526.010, et seq. Nor do these statutes have a…”
- Carrier v. Commonwealth (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 1980, 607 S.W.2d 115)“…ucky to depart from the federal norm. See also KRS 526.010, which defines “eavesdrop” as “to overh…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Kentucky AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
§ 526.080ForfeitureIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Any electronic, mechanical or other device designed or commonly used for eavesdropping which is possessed or used in violation of this chapter, is forfeited to the state and shall be disposed of in accordance with KRS 500.090.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Also relied on in: Kentucky Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules, Kentucky Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 338: OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH OF EMPLOYEES
§ 338.121Request for inspection -- Discrimination against employee prohibited -- RecourseIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Any employee, or representative authorized by the employees, who believes that a violation of an occupational safety and health standard exists that threatens physical harm, or that an imminent danger exists in their workplace, may request an inspection by giving notice to the commissioner of such violation or danger. Any such notice shall be reduced to writing, shall set forth with reasonable particularity the grounds for the notice, including the date the violation is alleged to have occurred, and shall be signed by the employees or the representative authorized by the employees, and a copy shall be provided to the employer or the employer's agent no later than at the time of inspection, except that, upon written request of an employee giving such notice, his or her name shall not appear in such copy. (2) If upon receipt of notification, reasonable grounds evidence any violation or danger in the workplace, then a special inspection shall be made in accordance with the provisions of KRS 338.101 and 338.111.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Benningfield v. Pettit Environmental, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2005, 183 S.W.3d 567)“…er filed an administrative discrimination charge based upon KRS 338.121 with the Kentucky Labor Cabinet. That c…”
- Kentucky Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission v. Estill County Fiscal Court (Kentucky Supreme Court 2016, 503 S.W.3d 924)“…arge of Smith following *926 her letter was a violation of KRS 338.121(3)(a). The Franklin Circuit Court aff…”
- Terminix International, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2002, 92 S.W.3d 743)“…ith the Labor Cabinet. This complaint was filed pursuant to KRS 338.121, and it alleged that Terminix ter- *746…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Whistleblower Laws: Protections and How to Report
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 531: PORNOGRAPHY
§ 531.090VoyeurismIn forcecited in 13 of our articles
(1) A person is guilty of voyeurism when: (a) He or she intentionally: 1. Uses or causes the use of any camera, videotape, photooptical, photoelectric, or other image recording device for the purpose of observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping the sexual conduct, genitals, an undergarment worn without being publicly visible, or nipple of the female breast of another person without that person's consent; or 2. Uses the unaided eye or any device designed to improve visual acuity for the purpose of observing or viewing the sexual conduct, genitals, an undergarment worn without being publicly visible, or nipple of the female breast of another person without that person's consent; or 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kentucky courts have treated KRS 531.090 largely as a jury-instruction question. Williams v. Commonwealth (2005) held the 2002 voyeurism statute could not reach conduct predating its July 15, 2002 effective date, and Morgan v. Commonwealth (2006) held voyeurism is not a lesser-included offense of first-degree burglary.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Williams v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2005, 178 S.W.3d 491)✓Williams photographed his eight-year-old stepdaughter naked in January 2001 and sought a lesser-included voyeurism instruction; the court held KRS 531.090 created a new offense effective July 15, 2002 and was not retroactive, so it could not reach his earlier conduct.
- Morgan v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2006, 189 S.W.3d 99)✓Morgan watched a couple through a trailer window, then cut the phone line and broke in armed; the court held voyeurism under KRS 531.090 is not a lesser-included offense of first-degree burglary because it requires proof of unlawful entry to view another person.
- Commonwealth v. Mixon (Kentucky Supreme Court 1992, 827 S.W.2d 689)“…lier cases, arising under the former habitual criminal act, KRS 531.090, required authenticated records of fore…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Exceptions, Kentucky School Recording Laws: Student, Parent, and Teacher Rights, Kentucky Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Legal Limits
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 61: GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO OFFICES AND OFFICERS -- SOCIAL SECURITY FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES -- EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
§ 61.102Reprisal against public employee for disclosure of violations of law prohibited -- Construction of statuteIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) No employer shall subject to reprisal, or directly or indirectly use, or threaten to use, any official authority or influence, in any manner whatsoever, which tends to discourage, restrain, depress, dissuade, deter, prevent, interfere with, coerce, or discriminate against any employee who in good faith reports, discloses, divulges, or otherwise brings to the attention of the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission, the Attorney General, the Auditor of Public Accounts, the Executive Branch Ethics Commission, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky or any of its members or employees, the Legislative Research Commission or any of its committees, members or employees, the judiciary or any member or employee of the judiciary, any law enforcement agency or its employees, or any other appropriate body or authority, any facts or information relative to an actual or suspected violation of any law, statute, executive order, administrative regulation, mandate, rule, or ordinance of the United States, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, or any of its political subdivisions, or any facts or information relative to actual or suspected mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse of authority,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-10 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 85 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Wymer v. JH Properties, Inc. (Kentucky Supreme Court 2001, 50 S.W.3d 195)“…awful claim under the Workers' Compensation Act. See also KRS 61.102, the Whistleblower protection for publi…”
- Commonwealth Department of Agriculture v. Vinson (Kentucky Supreme Court 2000, 30 S.W.3d 162)“…pted discretionary review. I. Statute Constitutional KRS 61.102(1) prohibits activity that is a direct…”
- Workforce Development Cabinet v. Gaines (Kentucky Supreme Court 2008, 276 S.W.3d 789)“…mended her complaint to include a whistleblower claim under KRS 61.102. Gaines argued that she was transferred…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 115 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide, Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 344: CIVIL RIGHTS § 344.010 (Definitions for chapter)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- KRS 526.020 - Eavesdropping(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS 526.010 - Definition of Eavesdrop(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS Chapter 526 - Eavesdropping and Related Offenses(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS 531.090 - Voyeurism(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS 61.102 - Whistleblower Protection for Public Employees(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS Chapter 344 - Civil Rights Act(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- National Labor Relations Board(nlrb.gov).gov
- EEOC - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act(eeoc.gov).gov
- OSHA Whistleblower Protections(osha.gov).gov