Can I Be Fired for Refusing Monitoring? At-Will Rules and the Exceptions

For most private-sector employees in the United States, yes. Employment is at will in every state except Montana, an employer may set the conditions of work including monitoring, and refusing to install a time tracker, keep a camera on or sign a monitoring acknowledgment is a refusal of a lawful instruction. No state's monitoring law creates a right to refuse; New York, Connecticut and Delaware require notice, not consent, and Illinois's biometric law requires consent but lets the employer make that consent a condition of employment. The protections that exist are narrower and more specific, and they cover more situations than most employees realize.

This guide sets out the default rule, then the five situations in which a dismissal for refusing monitoring can be unlawful: objecting together with coworkers under the National Labor Relations Act, a unionized employer's duty to bargain, a disability or medical reason, retaliation for a protected complaint, and public employment. It covers what to do before refusing, how to object in a way that keeps the protections available, the cases on each side, and the question for contractors asked to install software on their own machines.

The default rule

At-will employment means either side can end the relationship at any time for any reason that is not itself illegal. Monitoring a company device or workplace is lawful, so declining to accept it is a reason the employer may act on: refusing to install the required software, uninstalling it, covering a required camera during a mandated video shift, or refusing to sign the acknowledgment can each ground a dismissal or a decision not to hire. Montana's Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act requires good cause after a probationary period, and refusing a reasonable work rule has been treated as good cause. An employment contract or a collective agreement that specifies grounds for dismissal changes the analysis; for the majority without one, the question is not whether the employer can fire you for refusing but whether your refusal falls into one of the protected categories below.

What the notice and consent laws do and do not give you

Five situations where refusal is protected

1. You object together with coworkers

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects employees, union or not, who act together about terms and conditions of employment, and monitoring is a term and condition. Two employees who tell a manager the new screenshot tool is intrusive, a group email asking HR to reconsider, a petition, or one employee raising the issue on behalf of others are concerted activity, and dismissing someone for it is an unfair labor practice remedied by reinstatement and back pay through the National Labor Relations Board. The protection has edges. It covers the objection, not a refusal to follow the instruction while objecting; an employee who complains collectively and then also refuses to install the software can usually be dismissed for the refusal. It does not cover a purely individual gripe. And it does not reach supervisors, managers or most independent contractors. The Board's October 2022 general counsel memorandum, which proposed treating intrusive monitoring as presumptively unlawful, was rescinded on February 14, 2025 and never became Board law; the underlying Section 7 protection for group objection is decades old and unchanged.

2. You are in a union

A unionized employer must bargain with the union before introducing new monitoring technology, which the Board has long treated as a mandatory subject, including hidden cameras (Colgate-Palmolive, 1997) and more recently time tracking and productivity software. An employer that imposes monitoring without bargaining has committed an unfair labor practice, and discipline for refusing it can be challenged through the grievance procedure and the Board. The collective agreement may also contain just-cause and privacy provisions that go beyond the law.

3. You have a disability or medical reason

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires reasonable accommodation of a known disability. An employee whose condition makes a particular form of monitoring harmful, for example an anxiety disorder aggravated by continuous webcam observation, or a condition requiring frequent breaks that an activity score penalizes, can request a modification: a different tool, adjusted thresholds, camera off outside meetings. The employer must engage in the interactive process and may refuse only for undue hardship; dismissing an employee for refusing monitoring after a documented accommodation request is retaliation under the Act. The request must be made and documented before the refusal, not after the dismissal.

4. The dismissal is retaliation for a protected complaint

If you have complained that the monitoring is unlawful, for example a camera in a changing area, recording in an all-party consent state, biometric collection without a release, or monitoring aimed at union activity, and you are dismissed shortly after, anti-retaliation law applies even if the complaint was mistaken, provided it was reasonable and in good faith. California Labor Code 1102.5 protects employees who refuse to participate in an activity that would violate a law; state whistleblower statutes and the retaliation provisions of the wage, discrimination and safety laws do similar work. The protection attaches to the complaint, so make it in writing and make it specific.

5. You are a public employee

Government employers are bound by the Fourth Amendment, which under O'Connor v. Ortega (1987) and City of Ontario v. Quon (2010) permits workplace searches and monitoring that are reasonable at inception and in scope. A monitoring demand that is unreasonable, such as a camera scan of a home bedroom (Ogletree v. Cleveland State University, 2022), can be refused, and dismissal for refusing an unconstitutional search is itself actionable. Most public employees also have civil service or due process protection against dismissal without cause, which converts the question from whether the employer may dismiss to whether refusal was insubordination in the circumstances.

The cases

• Chetu (Netherlands, October 2022). A remote employee of a Florida software company refused to keep his webcam on for nine hours a day and was dismissed for "refusal to work" and "insubordination". A Dutch court held the demand a disproportionate intrusion and awarded about €75,000. It is the case most cited on this question and it is not US law; a US at-will employee in the same position would, outside the protected categories, have no claim in most states.
• Besse v. Reach CPA (British Columbia, January 2023). The reverse case: the employee did not refuse the time tracker, the tracker caught her misreporting hours, and she lost her wrongful dismissal claim and was ordered to repay about C$2,756. Monitoring that is disclosed and accepted becomes evidence.
• Arias v. Intermex (California, filed 2015). A sales executive alleged she was fired for deleting a phone app that tracked her 24 hours a day including off duty; she sued for wrongful termination and invasion of privacy and the case settled confidentially. It is the only US case to frame refusal of monitoring as wrongful termination, and the strength of the claim lay in the off-duty tracking rather than the refusal.
• NLRB cases on group objection. The Board has repeatedly reinstated employees dismissed after jointly complaining about working conditions, and its 2023 Starbucks decision found camera surveillance of union activity unlawful. There is no reported Board decision reinstating an employee dismissed solely for individually refusing to install monitoring software.
• Password law cases. States with password protection statutes have seen few reported cases; the laws work mainly by making the demand itself unlawful.

How to object without losing the protection

1. Ask first, refuse later. Request the policy, the notice (in New York, Connecticut or Delaware) and a description of what is captured, how often, who sees it and how long it is kept. Many objections dissolve when the answer is "application names and active time, no screenshots".
2. Object in writing and with others. A message from two or more employees, or one that says it is raised on behalf of a group, is concerted activity. Keep it about working conditions: intrusiveness, accuracy, fairness, data security.
3. Comply while objecting unless the instruction is itself unlawful (a camera in a private area, a demand for a personal password, biometric collection without a release in Illinois). Refusing a lawful instruction forfeits the at-will protection even when the objection is protected.
4. If the reason is medical, say so and ask for accommodation through HR, in writing, before any refusal. The interactive process is the protection.
5. If the instruction is unlawful, say which law and keep the message. The specificity is what makes a later dismissal look like retaliation.
6. Propose an alternative. Camera on for meetings only; a PIN clock instead of a fingerprint; activity tracking without screenshots. Employers that are offered a workable alternative rarely dismiss over the principle.
7. Document the timeline of the objection, the response and any change in treatment afterward.

Contractors and personal devices

Independent contractors and freelancers are outside the National Labor Relations Act and most employment statutes, so refusing a client's monitoring software is a contract question: the client can end the engagement, and the contractor can decline the terms. The practical issues are different. The software usually goes on the contractor's own machine, where it captures personal use unless the contractor runs it only while tracking; platforms such as Upwork offer a work diary with screenshots as a condition of hourly protection, which the freelancer accepts by choosing hourly contracts. A demand that a contractor install monitoring, keep set hours and accept supervision is also evidence of employee status under the economic reality test and California's ABC test, which cuts both ways: it strengthens a misclassification claim and it means the client may be taking on an employer's obligations without knowing it. Our 1099 vs W-2 guide covers the tests.

State differences that matter

• Montana: good cause required for dismissal after probation; refusing a reasonable, lawful monitoring policy is likely good cause, refusing an unlawful one is not.
• California: Labor Code 1102.5 protects refusal to participate in unlawful activity; the constitutional privacy right supports intrusion claims; AB 1883 and AB 1331 ban specific practices from 2027; Labor Code 980 bars personal password demands.
• Illinois: biometric consent may be a condition of employment, but the five-year, per-person damages exposure means most employers will offer an alternative if asked.
• Colorado: since July 1, 2025, employment may be conditioned on biometric consent only for the four listed purposes.
• New York, Connecticut, Delaware: notice rights, enforceable through the Attorney General or Labor Commissioner, but no right to refuse.
• Twenty-six states with password protection laws: refusing to provide personal account credentials is protected.
• All-party consent states for audio recording: refusing to be recorded without consent is refusing an unlawful instruction.

Our employee monitoring laws by state page has the statutes, the employee monitoring lawsuits page has the cases, and the policy guide shows employers how to write a policy employees will actually accept, which is the outcome both sides should want.

Key takeaways

• For at-will private employees in 49 states, refusing lawful monitoring on a company device is a refusal of a lawful instruction and can be grounds for dismissal. No state monitoring law creates a right to refuse.
• Objecting together with coworkers is protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act, union or not; the protection covers the objection, not a continued refusal to comply.
• Unionized employers must bargain before introducing monitoring; disabled employees can request accommodation; complaints that the monitoring is unlawful are protected from retaliation; public employees have Fourth Amendment limits.
• Refusing to hand over a personal account password is protected in 26 states; refusing biometric collection outside four purposes is protected in Colorado; refusing an unlawful instruction (private-area cameras, non-consensual audio recording, California's banned practices from 2027) is protected.
• The Dutch Chetu case (2022, about €75,000 for a dismissed employee who refused nine hours of webcam) is not US law; the US case most cited, Arias v. Intermex (2015), settled.
• Ask first, object in writing and with others, comply while objecting unless the instruction is unlawful, request accommodation before refusing, and propose an alternative.
• Contractors are outside the NLRA; a client's demand to install monitoring on a personal machine is a contract term and evidence of employee status.