Walmart Accused Of Secretly Videotaping Public Restroom

Seven current and former employees of a Pennsylvania Walmart Tire and Lube Center have filed suit against the company, reports the Morning Call. The employees say they discovered that they and the general public were being monitored via video camera in a public bathroom.

According to the filing:

On March 31, 2008, several employees discovered that Wal-Mart had been conducting video and audio surveillance of the bathroom, which was unisex, using a concealed “off-the-shelf” camera.

The camera was placed by Wal-Mart Loss Prevention, which seeks to stanch shoplifting, and was there without notice.

When confronted, a store manager denied there was a video camera in the bathroom, but he later admitted to it after being shown a photograph.

“Suit: Wal-Mart secretly videotaped bathroom” [The Morning Call] (Thanks to Anthony!)


Edit Your Comment

  1. TheObserver says:

    Gross, lawsuit time.

  2. H3ion says:

    Boy, some people will do anything to get on YouTube.

    This is criminal and the store manager ought to spend a little time at a government hotel. If this was sanctioned by higher ups, the government hotel should host a reunion.

    • wcnghj says:

      “Government hotel”

      I love it!!

    • Esquire99 says:

      It’s not criminal unless the State of PA or the Federal Govt. has declared it so.

      • mac-phisto says:

        “A person commits a misdemeanor if he views, photographs or films another person in a state of full or partial nudity without consent, under circumstances where the nude person has an expectation of privacy.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7507.1.

        i think that just about covers it. should be a freaking felony though. especially considering that children most likely used that restroom.

        • Esquire99 says:

          You’re assuming that the bathroom in question didn’t have stalls and that the camera was pointed in a manner that would capture the person in a state of full or partial nudity. Based on the facts we have, that’s a bit of a leap. That said, depending on how the facts turn out, it’s possible that this statute applies.

          • levelone says:

            It says it’s a unisex bathroom, which typically means that it’s a bathroom with one toilet and no stalls, intended primarily for use by disabled customers or parents with children. RTFA.

            • Esquire99 says:

              No need to be rude with the RTFA. Notice I said that it depends on the facts. The fact it’s a unisex bathroom doesn’t mean it definitely doesn’t have a stall. They TYPICALLY don’t have stalls, but that doesn’t mean they NEVER have stalls. Careful reading of comments FTW.

              • mac-phisto says:

                from the article: “Local management said the taping was aimed away from the toilet…” emphasis added. i think we can safely assume there was one toilet here.

                if you think that’s ok, that’s certainly your opinion, but it does not appear to be the opinion of the state of PA & personally, i think it’s disgusting. i understand a company’s desire to prevent loss, but filming bathrooms is taking that desire to a level that i don’t believe should be encouraged.

    • fusilier says:
  3. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    IIRC, it’s not illegal to film in a public bathroom except in the stalls, because outside of the stall, you expectation of privacy drops since it’s a public bathroom. I am pretty sure anything filmed in a bathroom is inadmissible in court though.

    As for why this was done, I don’t believe a word of it. Wal-Mart is VERY anti-union, to the point of having a special number to call should they get wind of talks, giving the managers special handbooks which they can not bring into the store, all the way to special “union breakers” who arrange meetings with employees to discuss Unionizing, but make sure to find the most anti union people to also attend and make the enviroment hostile. I know they started recording(audio/video) their freezer/coolers in some stores, because employees were gathering there to discuss unionizing. I mean, this is the company that closed and shuttered locations that unionized, which meant all the employees were then w/o jobs.

    • thisistobehelpful says:

      If it’s a unisex bathroom it was likely without stalls and instead a single use. Which would be really fucked up.

      • TechnoDestructo says:

        I was going to say this would be a great way to identify people who mess up bathrooms (like the people who clog toilets by laying multiple layers of toilet paper over the water so that there will be no splash, the people who leave their toilet paper on the floor, the people who shit all over the seats and piss on the floor because they have to hover over the seat without touching it…) and shame them. But you don’t need to video the interior of a stall to do that, and in this case they could get the same effect by just covering the entrance.

        (Look for the first person who looks revolted. The person before that is the culprit.)

        • PatrickPortland says:

          Unless the person before that just went in to wash his hands, and it was really the person before *him* that shat on the seat.

    • strathmeyer says:

      “IIRC, it’s not illegal to film in a public bathroom except in the stalls, because outside of the stall, you expectation of privacy drops since it’s a public bathroom. I am pretty sure anything filmed in a bathroom is inadmissible in court though.”

      Well, make up your mind then.

      • Kuchen says:

        No need to make up his mind. Being legal and being admissable in court are two completely separate things.

    • Esquire99 says:

      On what basis is it inadmissible in court?

    • dg says:

      Nothing wrong with WalMart wanting to be anti-Union. So they simply want to run their business without interference by outsiders. Don’t get me wrong – I know why Unions formed, and the good they’ve done. Lots of my relatives were Teamsters. But I’ve also see the wreckage that Unions cause to a business when they blindly support lazy, do-nothing, worthless, system abusers who are *SOME* of the Unionized employees.

      That fact, plus the fact that you end up paying someone MORE to do the same job as some other non-union employee can do, and you have to ask yourself, “What does this Union do to benefit this Company?”

      The simple answer is “NOTHING”. In the case of WalMart – you have a LOT of unskilled labor – just what can an unskilled Union laborer do that’s better than an unskilled non-Union laborer?

      The Unions DON’T train people to do things better, faster, or less expensively. The Unions don’t bother to partner with the Company to keep costs down, and productivity up unless and until the business is almost dead and they have no choice (e.g. Auto mfrs). The Unions demand that people get paid even if they’re not working (e.g. Auto mfrs). They demand all kinds of benefits, restrictions on reallocating staff, etc.

      And when the Company tries to call some schmuck on being late, or taking an extended break all the time, or stealing, or ghost punching, or whining about how “it’s not in my job description man”, then the Union is all too happy to file a grievance.

      Screw that noise. I may not agree with WalMart about many things, but I believe they’re doing the right thing by keeping Unions out. I’ve often wondered why more businesses simply don’t close the plant or location when the employees whine about forming a Union. Close the damn thing – move it to where there’s less trouble, and thus, less costs.

      • Esquire99 says:

        +1. Wal-Mart has made it fairly clear in the past that it would close a store before it let it unionize.

        • shepd says:

          And they have, and (at least in Canada) they are permitted to by law. Unionize and WalMart retains and exercises the right to terminate your store:


          And, quite frankly, as a previous business owner myself, I think that’s perfectly fine. Nobody should be forced to keep a business running if they’re not happy with it. That’s slavery, not freedom.

          • SarasiPolyxena says:

            Umm, that’s not what that ruling said but I understand that as an employer, and not an employee you wish it did.

            In fact, in Quebec, (where it happened and where laws, btw, are very different from the rest of Canada,) they would have been hit with Major, Major fines if the union was able to prove that that’s why they closed the store. They weren’t able to prove that that was the reason and so the case was dismissed.

            • shepd says:

              Hard to hit a store (especially one that’s incorporated) with fines when it, legally, ceases to exist. And even if you manage to overturn that, hard to get blood from a stone. I suppose you could go after WalMart corporate, but that really depends on how they decide to do things. I don’t think they franchise so that might work. Otherwise, good luck!

      • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

        i’m torn on unions. previously belonged to both united food and commercial workers and hotel unions through disney.
        1] -bad- coworker was sexually harassed by security guard, he got relocated even on a third offense [harassing different people] through union

        2] -bad- coworker with history of violent outbursts and anger management issues threatened another coworker with realistic looking fake gun: relocated to work inside theme park loading kids onto rides by virtue of union protection

        3] -good- manager who didn’t like me tried to fire me ‘for calling in to attend a wedding she heard me talking about going to’ when the wedding i had been talking about going to wasn’t for another three weeks and i had called in FMLA due to temporary paralysis from my MS. got to retain my job due to union representative mediation [manager was duly relocated at her own request]

        4] -good- union got preventative health measures for costumed disney characters – 30 minutes on with 15 minute breaks in guaranteed shade instead of 45 minutes on with 15 minute breaks, possibly in full summer florida sun. [my friend who played sweetums at the muppet ride used to say “wearing a character costume is like wearing a carpet with a bowling ball strapped to your head”] – previously there had been lots of heat stroke emergencies

        in all, like most things, i think it depends on the union and the job

        • katstermonster says:

          Unions have done both bad and good throughout their reign. Having worked in the aerospace industry, I have a rather nasty distaste for the particular machinist’s union that ruled the factory floors of the company I worked at. There were some really fantastic guys whose jobs were rightly protected, and some really horrendous ones who took advantage of being unionized in order to do nothing, file grievances against engineers at the drop of a hat, and just generally hold up progress. It’s one of those “can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em” circumstances. I agree: I just can’t make up my mind.

          Thankfully, the company I worked at is having some financial difficulties, and used this opportunity to “clean shop,” as it were, and get rid of some of the more useless unionized workers. But it really shouldn’t come to that.

      • perruptor says:

        The function of unions is not to benefit the company, it is to protect workers and promote their interests. Similarly, until recently it was not the function of government to benefit corporations, it was to protect citizens and promote their interests. The change in the government role has assisted the diminution of unions.

        Welcome to the new oligarchy.

    • LBD "Nytetrayn" says:

      Eh, if I was going to discuss unionizing in a place like Walmart, I’d probably do the actual discussing anywhere but.

    • PdxPhoenix says:

      from above : “the bathroom, which was _unisex_” unisex usually means a toilet, maybe a urinal, & sink in the room without any partitions… so once you get in the room & lock the only door in/out… you would be in a “private space.”

  4. GadgetsAlwaysFit says:

    Wouldn’t the camera in the changing room be illegal? I understand that a camera outside a bathroom is ok but I really didn’t think one is allowed IN the bathroom?

    • sleze69 says:

      The audio recording is certainly criminal. In PA, you need 2 party consent, otherwise your run afoul of the antiquated wiretapping laws.

      • Esquire99 says:

        That’s not necessarily true. Here, the audio recorded with the video would be the interception of an oral communication. In PA, an “oral communication” within the meaning of the wiretapping statute is one that is made when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, the question of whether one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in this particular bathroom is crucial. 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701, et. seq.

  5. Emperor Norton I says:

    There was a time back in the 1960s & 70s that numerous Sears stores had mirrors over each stall in the men’s rooms so their security people could see if you were doing something they considered to be wrong. Of course, everyone else in the toilets could also see you take a crap!

    • ludwigk says:

      This is guaranteed to end up in my nightmares, along with the “toilets with no stall” scenario…

      • Danj3ris says:

        A diner in Rockland county NY had this “Toilet(s) with no stall” scenario in the woman’s restroom. I don’t know if it was a temporary situation, but one of the women in our party beckoned me to look just so I could witness the bizarre and strange that fateful night.

      • FaustianSlip says:

        Never go to China. I never personally had to use one of the “no stall” toilets, but I knew people who did. The only thing worse than a no stall potty is a no stall squatty potty. Especially one in a rural area that doesn’t get many foreigners, so you’ll attract lots of staring. *shudder*

        • ahleeeshah says:

          The skating rink I used to go to when I was a kid did not have doors on the stalls. You were separated from the person next to you, but the front of the bathroom was also a wall of mirrors so you could see anyone else in the other stalls. So not only did you have to manage to pee while on skates, you could see everyone else doing it at the same time.

          Oh, and this was a women’s restroom

  6. tbax929 says:

    I used to work for that newspaper. I know… who cares.

    Anyway, this is ridiculous. I’m curious about who actually directed Loss Prevention to put that camera there. Since it was off-the-shelf, I’m hoping this was just some bonehead LP’s idea and not a company-wide directive.

  7. Fred E. says:

    Try convincing a jury that there is no expectation of privacy in a restroom! Don’t think you would get very far with that.

    • TheUncleBob says:

      Privacy… in what *type* of restroom?

      A Public Restroom?

      I hear “public” and the idea of privacy goes out the window.

      • morlo says:

        Public housing?

      • Esquire99 says:

        I think this is a key point. The only “private” part of a public restroom is inside the stall. Now if this is a single person restroom with no stall, that’s a different story. Not enough facts here to come to a conclusion.

        • jamar0303 says:

          Unisex bathrooms are almost always no-stall. Just a room. Any camera inside would be a violation of privacy.

        • Smashville says:

          Men’s restrooms generally don’t have stalls at the urinals.

          So that means they can legally film my penis because I shouldn’t have an expectation of privacy at the urinal?

          • Esquire99 says:

            I’m not sure it’s that clear, but I would argue that your expectation of privacy is LESS at a urinal than it is in a stall. Not to say that there isn’t one at all, but it’s certainly not on the same level as if you were in an enclosed stall.

      • Daemon Xar says:

        The test (at least in my states) is whether a reasonable person would expect themselves to be recorded while in a particular location. I think you’d have a hard time finding a lot of people who expect that they might be recorded, even in the “public” areas of a restroom. And that’s even assuming, arguendo, that the non-stall areas in a bathroom are “public.” I think they’re not–they’re generally restricted in some way (by gender, by number of people, etc.).

        • Esquire99 says:

          I think that’s a good argument – the gender restriction – but does that really make the entire bathroom private? I’m not sure I agree. I’m really not sure that there is a single “privacy” expectation that can be applied to all public bathrooms. Think about the ones where there is a clear division between the toilet area (urinals, stalls) and the sink area. Some bathrooms are fairly compartmentalized, and I think one could argue that certain parts of the bathroom are private while others are public. I really think this is an incredibly fact-specific issue, and there aren’t enough facts here to make a full conclusion.

          • consumerfan says:

            Most people don’t want to be filmed before, during or after a bathroom break. It doesn’t matter if it’s in a stall or by the sinks.

            One would expect to have to share the sinks with other bathroom occupants but that sharing wouldn’t extend to a camera and/or the general public.
            Especially a hidden camera.

            • Esquire99 says:

              Most people don’t want to be filmed anywhere, that’s not the point. The question is whether you had a reasonable expectation of privacy, not just whether you would want to be filmed or not. A peeping tom can invade your privacy without a camera, etc.

          • Daemon Xar says:

            It’s always an intensely fact-driven question. But I think you’d be hard pressed to find a jury or judge that’s not going to believe an ordinary person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (from filming) in a restroom, public or not. “Public” is ultimately irrelevant in this context–it’s what an ordinary person expects. There’s certainly some overlap in that we expect more privacy in private spaces than public, but I believe it’s possible to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space under the right circumstances.

            And, FYI, all this is only relevant in terms of admissibility of evidence and the fruits of that evidence. It has nothing to do with the legality of the recording.

  8. redrolla says:

    They recorded customers too! Lately was actually thinking about shopping at Walmart for the prices, but now it will never, never, never happen. This offends me so much that 10 years from now, I’ll still remember and still won’t shop at Walmart.

    • AngryK9 says:

      You can find better prices at Target anyway.

      Well, on some things.

      • tbax929 says:

        I think toiletries are cheaper at Walmart. I go to Target because it’s closer for me, but I have no shame in shopping at Wally World. Just don’t use the bathroom there!

    • Nogard13 says:

      This offends you? How in the world is this personally offensive when you weren’t involved? I can understand how a racist remark is offensive. I can understand how an anti-religious remark is offensive. I can’t understand how a store you’ve never visited, putting a camera in a restroom that you’ve never used, offends you.

      Sometimes I think Americans just use the word “offend” instead of dislike. It’s like people forget what the word means.

  9. shanoaravendare says:

    I’m amazed that this is just a civil suit.

    I live in PA and we’re a two party state, which means that both parties have to be aware that recording is taking place. There should definitely be criminal charges involved here.

    • mythago says:

      I think you’re thinking of phone recordings.

      • Verucalise (Est.February2008) says:

        Not phone, but VOICE recordings. If the video had any voice on it, they are in trouuubblllee.

        • Esquire99 says:

          It seems that in PA the “interception and recording” of oral communications is only prohibited if there is some expectation of privacy when the communication was made. So, like the invasion of privacy claim, this will hinge to some extent on whether one has a expectation of privacy in the situation presented here. See 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701, et. seq.

    • catnapped says:

      Wouldn’t they just have to put a sign up ‘somewhere’, stating that bathrooms may be videotaped? Knowing how they flout laws left and right, I wouldn’t be surprised if that were written on an index card and posted somewhere where nobody really could see it (“but by golly we did post it ‘somewhere'”).

      For that matter I know of at least one Giant (supermarket) which also has a camera in the bathrooms (though the have a sign on the door….guess that’s how they get around any privacy issues)

  10. echovictorecho says:

    “Those aren’t the socks she came in with!”

  11. Chinchillazilla says:

    I wanted to make a coherent comment here, but all I can say is:

    Ew ew ew ew ewwwww.

  12. SaraFimm says:

    This is a unisex single stall bathroom used by both employees and customers/public. From the description, the camera wasn’t across from the door to see who went in/out, how long they were there or if they changed clothes or weight (shoplifting). If the camera was INSIDE the restroom, there is a whole host of crap that will come down on that store like a ton of bricks. MULTIPLE Lawsuit time.

    • GadgetsAlwaysFit says:

      I thought that I read in the original article that it was installed IN the bathroom. They mentioned that they didn’t have the camera pointed at the toilets which I took as being installed in the bathroom.

      • Verucalise (Est.February2008) says:

        That’s what Sarafimm said, according to the description it wasn’t monitoring people going in and out of the bathroom, but people actually INSIDE the bathroom.

      • hungryhomer says:

        “Local management said the taping was aimed away from the toilet and was done to determine whether workers were stealing.”

        The operative word here is toilet, singular. Knowing that this is one of those single occupancy bathrooms, I would assume there is no stall, just a toilet and sink. Unless this was a very long bathroom, the camera was likely pointed mere inches away from viewing the toilet, which in itself is extremely sketchy. With dimensions like that, I doubt anyone would not consider that a ‘private’ area.

        As Ricky Ricardo might say, Walmart’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.

  13. hamburglar says:

    If they say it was to stanch shoplifting, I believe it. We’ve all seen, and I can’t imagine anybody would want to film them in the toilet with prurient intent.

  14. Dustbunny says:

    Was Chuck Berry somehow involved in this?

  15. Esquire99 says:

    I’d really like to see a copy of the complaint, but none of the news sources seem to have posted it, and the Northampton County Court doesn’t post filings online. From what I can ascertain, the claims based on the video taping are invasion of privacy and possibly Federal/State wiretapping laws, which seems odd. It’s incredibly difficult to say whether any of the claims have much merit, as they are all probably based on fairly discrete facts that we don’t have. Further, does one (as mentioned by another commenter) have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom outside of the stalls? If so, did this bathroom have stalls? What are the elements for an invasion of privacy claim in PA? If anyone comes across a link to the actual complaint, please pass it along.

    • Vivienne says:

      Let me guess, you also think a woman in a skirt has no expectation of privacy, and that it is A-OK to snap a picture of her panties on the subway? Because she is “in public.”

      • Esquire99 says:

        I’m not sure how you pulled that out of my comment. I was essentially saying that there aren’t enough facts here to know for sure if what walmart did violated any laws or if walmart committed any torts by putting this camera in the bathroom. I certainly don’t support camera’s in bathrooms, but that doesn’t make it illegal/tortious.

    • levelone says:

      There are no stalls, there’s only one toilet. The expectation of privacy would be way higher than in a normal multi-stall bathroom because only one person (or a parent with child/children) is intended to be in this room at a time.

  16. nucwin83 says:

    Those mentioning that privacy should not be expected outside of a stall should consider the fact that this camera was 1) concealed, and 2) its placement was not disclosed to the individuals who decided to utilize that restroom. It’s also a hell of a lot easier to videotape a doorway and see if an individual walks in with merchandise and leaves without merchandise. Simply telling people that they’re potentially being videotaped is also a pretty good deterrent. If your shrink is that bad, put a set of sensor bars on the doorway or hallway going to the bathroom. Sensor goes off, you know to check it out. All better ideas than the idiot that decided to put the camera in.

    I’d say that WalMart is damned lucky if customers of that store don’t seek their own suits.

    • Esquire99 says:

      I’m not sure how the fact the camera was concealed and not disclosed affects whether one has a reasonable expectation of privacy outside the stalls in a bathroom. You either have an expectation of privacy or you don’t. If you don’t have one, video taping doesn’t invade anything.

      • nucwin83 says:

        I agree, but the fact that the management concealed it and denied it, makes a distinct impression that they weren’t entirely sure about the legality of their actions. Otherwise why not just put it out there that you were being videotaped and be done with it? Personally I feel that it should be off limits no matter what type of restroom it is, but the unisex aspect of this case makes it all the more an issue since unisex bathrooms typically do not have a stall and are intended for single person use and thus do not have a ‘public’ area to them except when the door is open.

        • Esquire99 says:

          I can think of at least a few reasons for denying it even though it’s legal. First and foremost, employee morale/loyalty. Further, just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s “right” and I’m sure WalMart, even if it is legal, wouldn’t want people to know it video tapes the restrooms. I certainly see your point that if Walmart knew it was legal why it wouldn’t just admit it, but that’s similar to the argument regarding the receipt checks. If you didn’t do anything wrong, why not show the receipt?

          I also share your skepticism regarding the bathroom in question, and I wish we had more facts upon which to actually conclude whether the bathroom had stalls, etc.

  17. FooSchnickens - Full of SCAR says:

    Seven seems to be the magic number for employees getting in trouble this season. First it was the seven Target employees in trouble for buying the toy hamsters, and now seven wallies are in trouble for this.

  18. soj4life says:

    if it wasn’t aimed at the toilets, no case. No one should think that just because they are not on the shopping floor, that they are not being videotaped. This store had to have a large amount of shrinkage for LP to install a camera outside of the sales floor.

    And the other complaints are merit-less unless PA’s DEP fined them. Oh and if you can not work in a stressful, go-go work environment, find another job.

    • Esquire99 says:

      Your other assertions aside, I was amused by the claims that they were forced to work under “time pressure” and were “yelled at” by supervisors. Cry me a freaking river, it’s a job. We all work under “time pressure” and you don’t have a right not to get yelled at. Seriously, what a bunch of pansies.

    • That's Consumer007 to you says:

      TOTAL case if that camera was anywhere INSIDE the bathroom. If you think anyone has a right to tape anyone else without knowledge or consent inside a bathroom, you are a sub-human being, and the perpetrator / videotaper here is a criminal perv.

      • Esquire99 says:

        You’re too quick to jump to conclusions here. I don’t necessarily think that one has an expectation of privacy in a large public bathroom outside the stalls. If this is a single person, no stall bathroom that’s another story. We don’t know that for sure right now.

    • levelone says:

      Since customers also used this restrooom and were recorded, it’s obviously not off the salesfloor. What’s your argument for that?

  19. LACubsFan says:

    You think thats bad? Disneyland has over 1,500 camera’s, Disneyworld has double that.

    Besides having camera’s all over the park they also have cameras in all of their restrooms. Not only that, they can see 1/2 way down into each stall, so if you are an average size adult sitting down they can see down to your mid chest.

    The reason why… is because if someone snatches up a kid and attempts to drag him/her out of site into a stall, they are nailed.

    • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

      please back this up. i worked at walt disney world for 7 years and while it was made clear to us that there were video cameras in the stockrooms, it was made pretty clear that there were none in the bathrooms.
      and i had ample opportunity to find them, and after one of my coworkers got fired for stealing from the stockrooms at the world of disney store at downtown disney, we all spent weeks looking everywhere to see if we could spot cameras we already knew were there, including in restrooms and parks and every public area.
      it was kind of a game.
      i found lots of cameras, many obvious, a few hidden but none in dozens of bathrooms.

      and later when i worked in a location where i had access to the downtown disney security control room i was able to see the views from over a hundred security cameras. none in any bathrooms.

      unpublicized walt disney world fact – there’s an undercover security task force that looks and dresses like tourists and mingles with the crowd all day every day. i got to know a couple of them and what they did in their jobs. a human trained for and looking for suspicious behavior in the people immediately adjacent to them is a lot more effective than my friend michael sitting in a windlowless room with a hundred different tiny black and white screen images

      • fantomesq says:

        I’ll second this – there are no cameras inside the restrooms at Disneyland and I challenge you to prove otherwise. You don’t think a deep pocket like Disney would have been sued to high heaven for such an invasion already if there were actually cameras in the restrooms?!? The rest of the park is well bugged though :)

        • LACubsFan says:

          I can’t prove it, but I can tell you how I know.

          When I was about 12 years old (I’m 32 now) I went to Disneyland with camp. I was really a pain in the ass little bastard at that age. Anywho, a few of us went on Small World and we started rocking the boats and splashing eachother and standing up and touching any of the props we could reach. They came over the loud speaker and told us to stop, but we just kept doing it and we were drenched. By the time the ride ended Disney security was waiting for us, took us into custody. We were marched all the way to the main street security control room and sat down in chairs around this empty desk. My little brother and I were told to go with the guard to talk to his supervisor to call our parents…. We were led through a hallway and then down a few stairs and were brought into this big room full of camera views and told to wait there until the boss showed up. On the other side of the room there was a smaller set of screens except these screens had these black plastic things on the side of them so nobody could see them from the sides, and a little bit away from that was a watercooler in the corner. I asked if I could get a drink, and when I went to grab it I got a good look at those “hidden” screens and what I saw were bathroom views, I could see guys standing at the urinals, as well as people’s heads in the stalls and people at the sinks washing their hands at the sinks. I must have made a noise because the guy turned around and yelled at me to get back to my chair.

          Are they still there? I dunno. This was 15+ years ago.

    • That's Consumer007 to you says:

      You obviously have a lack of security knowledge. You can achieve the same effect with video outside the stall, because that would catch the kid going into or being pulled into the stall. There is NO valid reason shooting INSIDE the stall, ever, period, finis, and that is why it is ILLEGAL.

  20. stacyr says:

    Just a thought, but all unisex Wal-Mart bathrooms I’ve seen do not have stalls. They are the type with just an outside locking door, so families that have small children can go in together.

  21. C1erkerist says:

    If this is a unisex bathroom, it has a locking door and only accommodates one person at a time. I would expect privacy is such a room.

    • Esquire99 says:

      I have a hard time accepting that ALL unisex bathrooms are open rooms with no stalls. In fact, I’m pretty sure I have been in a few that had stalls. I think that’s likely that case, but I don’t think that such a conclusion can be drawn without more facts.

      • pop top says:

        If it’s the family bathroom that most Walmarts have, then it really is just a single room with a toilet and sink, no stalls or dividers.

      • C1erkerist says:

        It’s not the existence of stalls that is the issue. It’s the fact that the door is locked and you are in the room by yourself. Men and women do not use the restroom at the same time, it’s first-come, first-served.

  22. theSuperman says:

    Wow thats creepy, the WalMart is like 10 miles away from me!

  23. Hands says:

    More and more, I like Walmart less and less.

  24. Seanumich says:

    For those who keep talking about “expectation of privacy”, I need to ask you, why wouldn’t there be an expectation of privacy anywhere beyond the door? Based on your flawed reasoning, I have no expectation of privacy when I am at the gym with community showers or anywhere else I may be changing. Would Wal Mart have a man walk into the womens rest room to clean while women were in the stalls?

  25. satoru says:

    Man there’s a reason why even Vegas doesn’t put cameras in the bathrooms….

  26. savdavid says:

    Always lower morals, always.

  27. sheepy says:

    I was a manager when Wal-Mart was being sued for being anti-woman. Here’s how the company works. I had a rebellious employee who, I later found out, was a snitch for the manager accuse me of sexual harassment. I did absolutely nothign wrong.

    My little skank vowed to get me fired for putting her on report for havign a bad attitude, refusing to follow direction, etc. She boasted that she got the previous manager fired and said I was next.

    I came back towork after two days, was marched into the head managers office – let’s calll her Brilliant Beth – and was fired for making “gross” comments to female employees. I never got a chance to defend or explain. Supposedly, Wal-Mart does not need a union because you can got to the next level of management but it’s just a black hole where problems are shelved and it never goes beyond that.

    And the skank? There was such an uprising that she was allowed to transfer to another store. I understand she got a raise.

    Wal-Mart is the evil empire. Sue them into poverty. They deserve it.

    Former CSM Kirkwood, MO Wal_Mart

    • Thorn says:

      “I had a rebellious employee who, I later found out, was a snitch for the manager accuse me of sexual harassment.”

      No offense but based on this statement you kind of show you do have a disdain for the employee, and the manager. In one sentence you state the employee is a snitch and that she made false accusations against you. You also indicate you feel the manager engaged in clandestine actions that required the use of employee informants.

      What was she snitching on? Wrong doing? Isn’t that appropriate? This is not prison after all.

      “My little skank vowed to get me fired for putting her on report”

      Your little skank? Your reference to a female as something that is a possession implies to me you view them as less in your eyes at the very least you regard this female as less than you so you are coming off on the wrong foot right off the bat.

      “I came back towork after two days, was marched into the head managers office – let’s calll her Brilliant Beth – and was fired for making “gross” comments to female employees. “

      So Beth too lacks intelligence and is less of a person than you? She is not worth respect and regard? No offense but your post, and your spelling errors is not speaking so well of your own intelligence.

      “And the skank? There was such an uprising that she was allowed to transfer to another store. I understand she got a raise.”

      Ahh yes the skanks she is a dirty disgusting woman and not in any way worthy of being referred to with respect or treated properly. I see it all clear now.

      What I see is a man who clearly had issues respecting females with authority, who disrespected woman who were in his opinion beneath him and I have no doubt you are guilty of conduct unworthy of a manager of people. That of course is just my opinion.

  28. Winteridge2 says:

    So now we have to moon the cameras every time we use a walmart restroom? What a bother!

  29. GamblesAC2 says:

    Why do I feel like this song sums it all up