IDK, this case seems really complicated. First, it’s a state agency, not a private employer. And there is a difference between a camera in a public space and a camera pointed directly at an individual in a private office. The entire point of having an office in the first place is that it provides some level of privacy. If an employer doesn’t want to give their employees any privacy, they can have them work in an open-plan office. At least in that case, the employees will naturally feel exposed in a public space and will act accordingly. But a private office? That naturally encourages people to perform behaviors they wouldn’t perform in public. You might not take a phone call from your doctor in an open plan office, but it wouldn’t be unusual to take one in a private office.

I get that plenty of other employers have cameras. But there are some very key differences between cashiers and someone working in a government office. The cashier works for a private employer, and thus constitutional protections aren’t applicable. And cashiers are literally standing in a big room interacting with the public; it’s obvious that privacy is not implied. But if you, as an employer, put someone in a space that implies they’ll have privacy, but then secretly record them? Yeah, that could fall afoul of some privacy laws.

I don’t really know if they have a case or not. But the fact that an employment attorney was likely willing to take the case on contingency suggests that the case is, at the very least, not frivolous.