An employer, suspecting that one of his employees (Miller) was engaging in conduct detrimental to the operation of his office installed a camera to watch her, first in the reception area, then in the bathroom. But in the bathroom, the employer said, the equipment never worked, and he could not see any images. Upon discovering the camera, a coworker (Koeppel) reported him to the police, and sued for intrusion upon seclusion, as did her coworker. 

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the Iowa Supreme Court decide?

2. Why does the Court conclude that an intrusion upon seclusion claim does not require evidence that the offending party actually succeeded in viewing or otherwise intruding on the plaintiff? Does this decision amount to, as the defendant argues, authorizing claims for attempted invasion of privacy? Why or why not? 

3. This decision focuses on whether an intrusion occurred. On remand, will the plaintiff be able to establish the other elements of her intrusion upon seclusion claim? Why or why not? Would the outcome be the same for the privacy claim being brought by the plaintiff’s coworker Miller? Why or why not?

4. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the legal claims in this case, what should this smaller employer have done differently?