North Dakota
North Dakota Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

North Dakota is a one-party consent state under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02, so an employee may record any workplace conversation they participate in without notifying coworkers or managers. Employers may still enforce no-recording policies, and violating one can result in termination even though the recording itself is not a criminal offense.
North Dakota's one-party consent law under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02 gives employees broad rights to record workplace conversations. You can record in-person meetings and phone calls you participate in without informing other parties, as long as the recording is not made for criminal or unlawful purposes. Employers also have rights to conduct surveillance in appropriate areas.
This guide covers employee recording rights, employer surveillance rules, how company policies interact with state law, federal labor protections, and how workplace recordings are used in legal proceedings.
Employee Recording Rights
Recording In-Person Workplace Conversations
Under one-party consent, North Dakota employees can record face-to-face workplace interactions including:

- Meetings with supervisors and managers
- Performance reviews and disciplinary meetings
- Conversations with HR representatives
- Discussions with coworkers
- Safety briefings and verbal instructions
- Union meetings and organizing discussions
The recording must not be for criminal or unlawful purposes. Documenting harassment, preserving verbal agreements, and recording for potential litigation are all lawful purposes.
Recording Work Phone Calls
One-party consent applies to work phone calls. Under North Dakota law you can record calls with clients, conference calls, virtual meetings on Zoom or Teams, and calls with vendors you take part in without informing other participants, unless you record to commit a crime or other unlawful harm.
If anyone on the call is in an all-party consent state such as California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, or Washington, that state's law may require everyone's consent, so announce the recording on interstate calls.
The Unlawful Purpose Limitation
Even with one-party consent, recording at work becomes illegal if done for:
- Blackmail or extortion of a coworker or employer
- Facilitating fraud or theft
- Stalking or intimidating coworkers
- Any other criminal or unlawful purpose
Employer Surveillance Rights
Video Surveillance
North Dakota employers can install cameras in common work areas where employees have no reasonable privacy expectation: lobbies, sales floors, warehouses, parking lots, hallways, and cash register areas.
Prohibited Areas
No North Dakota statute lists where an employer may place cameras, but lawful workplace cameras stay out of bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, nursing rooms, and medical examination areas. Surreptitiously installing or using a recording device in a place where a reasonable individual would have an expectation of privacy, with intent to intrude on an occupant's privacy, is a class B misdemeanor under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31-14. When that surreptitious recording is made to arouse or gratify sexual desires and the occupant has exposed or is likely to expose intimate parts, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12.2 makes it a class A misdemeanor, or a class C felony for a repeat offense or a minor victim. Cameras in these locations can also bring civil claims, though a general invasion-of-privacy lawsuit is uncertain in North Dakota because the state Supreme Court has not decided whether that claim exists.
Audio Surveillance
Employer audio surveillance follows the same wiretap statute. An employer may record a workplace call or conversation only if it is a party to it or a participant has given prior consent, for example an employee who has agreed in writing to call monitoring. Simply being on a call the employer records is not consent. Recording employees' conversations the employer is not part of, without any participant's consent, can be a class C felony under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02, apart from a narrow exclusion for phone-company equipment used in the ordinary course of business (§ 12.1-15-04(3)(a)). However, the NLRB has found that pervasive audio surveillance can interfere with employees' Section 7 rights.
Company Recording Policies

Can Employers Ban Recording?
Many employers maintain no-recording policies. These policies are enforceable as employment conditions. Key points:
- A company policy cannot make recording a crime
- Violating the policy can result in termination (North Dakota is at-will)
- The recording itself remains legally valid
- Recordings made in violation of policy can still be used as evidence
When NLRA Protections Apply
The National Labor Relations Act can protect recording when it is part of concerted activity, meaning employees acting together or on behalf of coworkers to document unsafe conditions, wage theft, or unfair labor practices. It does not cover supervisors, agricultural workers, or government employees, and a recording made only for a personal dispute is usually not protected.
Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), a work rule that has a reasonable tendency to chill protected activity is presumptively unlawful unless the employer proves the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest that a more narrowly tailored rule could not serve. Stericycle remains the Board's standard for judging workplace rules, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it. Overly broad policies that ban recording in all circumstances, with no safety-related carve-out, are particularly vulnerable under this standard.
Federal Protections
OSHA Whistleblower Protections
OSHA protects employees who report unsafe conditions. Recordings of safety violations support whistleblower claims under 29 U.S.C. § 660(c).
EEOC and Discrimination Documentation
Employees can use recordings to support discrimination and harassment claims filed with the EEOC. Courts evaluate these recordings on a case-by-case basis.
Using Workplace Recordings in Legal Proceedings
Lawfully made workplace recordings are generally admissible in North Dakota courts for employment lawsuits, workers' compensation claims, and administrative proceedings before the North Dakota Department of Labor. They can support claims of wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, wage theft, and retaliation.
Remote Work Monitoring
North Dakota does not have specific remote work monitoring legislation. Employers should disclose monitoring practices in writing and limit monitoring to work activities on company devices.
More North Dakota Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to North Dakota Recording Laws
More North Dakota Recording Topics
More North Dakota Laws
- North Dakota AI Meeting Recording Laws
- North Dakota Dashcam Laws
- North Dakota Data Privacy Laws
- North Dakota Deepfake Laws
- North Dakota Employee Monitoring Laws
- North Dakota GPS Tracking Laws
- North Dakota Police Bodycam Laws
- North Dakota Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record my boss in North Dakota without telling them?
Yes. Under one-party consent, you can record workplace conversations you participate in without informing your boss. The recording must not be for criminal or unlawful purposes. Be aware your employer may have a no-recording policy that could lead to termination.
Can my employer put cameras in the workplace in North Dakota?
Yes, in common areas like lobbies, sales floors, and parking lots. No statute lists forbidden locations, but secretly recording into bathrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas with intent to intrude on privacy is a crime under N.D.C.C. 12.1-31-14. North Dakota does not require employers to notify employees about workplace cameras.
Can I be fired for recording at work in North Dakota?
Yes. While the recording is legal under state law, violating a company no-recording policy can result in termination because North Dakota is an at-will employment state. The NLRA may protect recording done as concerted activity.
Can workplace recordings be used as evidence in North Dakota?
Yes. Lawfully made workplace recordings are generally admissible in employment lawsuits, workers' compensation claims, and administrative proceedings. The recording must be authenticated and relevant.
Does the NLRA protect workplace recording in North Dakota?
It can. The NLRA protects recording that is part of concerted activity, such as employees documenting unsafe conditions or labor violations together, but not supervisors, agricultural workers, or government employees, and usually not a recording made only for a personal dispute. Overly broad no-recording policies that chill protected activity may violate the NLRA under the Board's current Stericycle standard, which the Board has signaled it may revisit.
Updates
Clarified that lawfully made workplace recordings are generally, not automatically, admissible.
We corrected the employer audio-monitoring rule (an employee's presence on a call is not consent), restated the NLRB's Stericycle test accurately and noted that the Board may revisit it, limited NLRA protection to concerted activity, replaced a flat camera-location ban with the actual crimes, and added a caution about recording calls with people in all-party consent states.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
We added the North Dakota statutes (N.D.C.C. 12.1-31-14 and 12.1-20-12.2) that govern hidden cameras in private areas such as restrooms and locker rooms, including their intent requirements and penalty classes.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
North Dakota Century Code
§ 12.1-15-02Interception of wire or oral communications - EavesdroppingIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
A person is guilty of a class C felony if he: Intentionally intercepts any wire or oral communication by use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device; or Intentionally discloses to any other person or intentionally uses the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he secretly loiters about any building with intent to overhear discourse or conversation therein and to repeat or publish the same with intent to vex, annoy, or injure others. It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection 1 that: The actor was authorized by law to intercept, disclose, or use, as the case may be, the wire or oral communication. The actor was: A person acting under color of law to intercept a wire or oral communication, and He was a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication had given prior consent to such interception.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ndlegis.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Fargo Women's Health Organization, Inc. v. Larson (1986) applied the subsection 3(c) defense to this section and held that recordings of calls were properly admitted because the callers knew of and consented to the recording of their own conversations.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fargo Women's Health Organization, Inc. v. Larson (North Dakota Supreme Court 1986, 391 N.W.2d 627)✓A private investigator hired by an abortion clinic recruited callers to phone a rival anti-abortion clinic and recorded the calls with the callers' consent; the court held that consent triggered the defense in section 12.1-15-02(3)(c), so the tapes were admitted.
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…Ann. § 30-12-1 (1994); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287 (1999); N. D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02 (1997); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.52…”
- American Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2012, 679 F.3d 583)“…55 § 750.539c; N.D. Cent. Code. Ann. § 12.1-15-02. The Cali- fornia statute is illustrat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: North Dakota Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), North Dakota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, North Dakota Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
United States Code Title 29
§ 660Judicial reviewIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order of the Commission issued under subsection (c) of section 659 of this title may obtain a review of such order in any United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the violation is alleged to have occurred or where the employer has its principal office, or in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, by filing in such court within sixty days following the issuance of such order a written petition praying that the order be modified or set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Commission and to the other parties, and thereupon the Commission shall file in the court the record in the proceeding as provided in section 2112 of title 28.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,040 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- National Realty and Construction Company, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Secretary of Labor, Party (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1973, 489 F.2d 1257)“…85, Sept. 6, 1972. Review by this court is available under 29 U. S.C. § 660(a) (1970). 2 . Occ…”
- Michael P. Gaffney, Thomas Bell, Edward Anderson v. Riverboat Services of Indiana, Incorporated, Riverboat Services, Incorporated, Robert Heitmeier v. Showboat Marina Casino Partnership, Showboat, Incorporated, Showboat Indiana, Incorporated (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006, 451 F.3d 424)“…was modeled after OSHA's retaliatory discharge provision, 29 U.S.C. § 660 (c). See S.Rep.No. 98-454, at 12 (198…”
- Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1995, 514 U.S. 122)“…402 (b)(6); Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U. S. C. § 660 (a); Federal Mine Safety and Health Act…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Mexico Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026), Wisconsin Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026), Nevada At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
Sources and References
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02(ndlegis.gov).gov
- NLRA(nlrb.gov).gov
- OSHA(whistleblowers.gov).gov
- EEOC(eeoc.gov).gov
- North Dakota Department of Labor(nd.gov).gov
- N.D.C.C. Chapter 12.1-31, § 12.1-31-14 (Surreptitious intrusion or interference with privacy)(ndlegis.gov).gov
- N.D.C.C. Chapter 12.1-20, § 12.1-20-12.2 (Surreptitious intrusion)(ndlegis.gov).gov