IBJNews

Employees sue Finish Line over manager's secret camera use

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based The Finish Line Inc. is facing a lawsuit in California after one of its former managers secretly installed a camera in an employee bathroom and store dressing room.

Five female employees, whose ages ranged from 17 to 21 at the time, are seeking unspecified damages from the retail chain and the ex-manager, David Meyer.

Meyer, who started out managing Finish Line stores in Indiana, was manager of the Milpitas, Calif., store from 2006 to February 2010. He made the recordings in late 2009 and early last year, but they weren’t discovered on his personal computer until March, according to the women’s lawsuit, which was filed in August in U.S. District Court of northern California.

It’s not clear who discovered the videos, and Meyer, who now resides in Warsaw in northern Indiana, doesn’t appear to be facing criminal charges.

Meyer, who is representing himself, filed a response in which he admits to placing hidden cameras in the employee bathroom and the dressing room on multiple occasions between December 2009 and April 2010.

Meyer said he used the cameras to “identify who was flushing harmful items down the toilet.”

Indianapolis-based Finish Line sought help with legal costs from its insurer under its general liability policy after the suit was filed, but Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. denied the claim. Now Liberty Mutual is asking the U.S. District Court of southern Indiana to issue a declaration confirming that its denial is appropriate.

Finish Line might be able to settle the case out of court. The company’s lawyers have asked the California judge to force the women into private arbitration.

As part of their job applications, the women signed an agreement stating “parties shall have no right to litigate a dispute in any other forum,” Finish Line notes.

Finish Line spokeswoman Anne Roman said she couldn’t comment on ongoing litigation, but the company has issued a statement saying it had nothing to do with Meyer’s behavior.

The situation was “isolated to an ex-employee that has not worked for the company in nearly two years and whose alleged actions were neither known to nor in any way condoned by the company,” the statement said. "The safety and security of our employees is a top priority at Finish Line.”

Finish Line operates about 650 athletic apparel and footwear stores across the country.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Gimme a Break
    And what harmful items does Meyer think they were flushing in the dressing rooms??????? What a creepy thing to do.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT