Two employees sued an employer, who had placed a surveillance video camera in an office that employees shared, for invasion of privacy, inten-tional infliction of emotional distress, and negli-gent infliction of emotional distress. The employer, a facility for abused children, defended on the grounds that (1) the plaintiffs were not recorded or viewed by the surveillance equipment defendants placed in their office; and (2) all employees of the facility had a diminished expectation of privacy that was overcome by defendants' need to protect the children residing at their facility. Does the fact that the employees were never actually recorded let the employer off the liability hook? Did the nature of the employer's business diminish the employees' expectation of privacy to the point where their privacy interest could not support an invasion of privacy lawsuit? [See Hernandez v. Hil