TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) – Women who suspected they were spied on when they used the bathroom at an office building have lost their lawsuit, as the New Jersey Supreme Court said not enough evidence was gathered to show they were ever recorded.
The court’s June 16 decision reinstates the original decision of a trial court handling the case of Teodoro Martinez, a night cleaning crew supervisor who hid cameras in some women’s restrooms and the women’s locker room at a five-story office building.
He was charged with third-degree invasion of privacy and fled the country before he could be jailed.
“Nearly three years after the filing of the initial complaint, despite a motion for summary judgment and extensive argument about the state of the record, the Arendt plaintiffs had not offered proof from which one could reasonably infer that they used a restroom while a camera was placed there,” Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote.
“And the court could not reasonably infer from the record that cameras had been placed in all fifteen bathrooms. It was therefore not possible for the trial court to find that plaintiffs had satisfied their burden by a preponderance of the evidence at the summary judgment stage.”
Allowing more time to gather evidence for a trial would likely be pointless, the Supreme Court ruled. It also ruled that plaintiffs can pursue an “intrusion upon seclusion” claim when physical evidence their privacy has been violated, but that these plaintiffs did not have enough evidence.
There were two sets of plaintiffs in the case – one with women whose images were on the records stored by Martinez and another whose women weren’t (the Arendt plaintiffs).
Both sued Martinez, the building owner, a security company and Martinez’s employer, among other defendants.