Rhode Island
Rhode Island 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. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Rhode Island is a one-party consent state under R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21, so an employee may record any workplace conversation they participate in without notifying coworkers or managers. The recording must not serve criminal, tortious, or injurious purposes. Employers may still enforce no-recording policies and terminate violators.
Rhode Island's one-party consent law under R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 allows employees to record workplace conversations they participate in. The recording must not be for criminal, tortious, or injurious purposes. Employers can conduct video surveillance in appropriate common areas.
This guide covers employee recording rights, employer surveillance, company policies, federal labor protections, and using workplace recordings as evidence.
Employee Recording Rights
Employees can record in-person meetings, phone calls, and virtual meetings they participate in. Common uses include documenting harassment, preserving verbal agreements, recording performance reviews, and collecting evidence for potential legal claims.
Employer Surveillance
Employers can install cameras in lobbies, sales floors, warehouses, parking lots, and hallways. Rhode Island law flatly prohibits employers from making any audio or video recording of employees in a restroom, locker room, or employer-designated changing room unless a court has authorized it (R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-6.12-1). The employer may not use such a recording for any purpose, and an employee can sue for damages, attorney's fees, and an injunction.
Capturing intimate areas for a sexual purpose is also the crime of video voyeurism under § 11-64-2.
Company Recording Policies
Rhode Island is at-will. Employers can fire employees for violating no-recording policies, but the recording remains legally valid and can be used as evidence. The current NLRB standard for no-recording handbook policies is Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023): a policy is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable economically dependent employee could read it as chilling Section 7 protected concerted activity, unless the employer proves the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest that a more narrowly tailored rule could not serve. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) rescinded certain prior memoranda as a housekeeping measure but did not reinstate the prior Boeing framework. Stericycle remains the Board's standard for judging workplace rules, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it.
Federal Protections
OSHA protects whistleblowers. The EEOC accepts recording evidence in discrimination claims. The Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights handles state-level employment discrimination.
An employee may have a civil wiretap claim under R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-13, but that is not settled for a private employer's recording: the section is written for violations of the court-ordered wiretap chapter, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court has not squarely decided whether it reaches a private recording. A lawyer may also plead Rhode Island's privacy statute (§ 9-1-28.1) or the federal wiretap remedy (18 U.S.C. § 2520).
In Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc., 212 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2019), the employee conceded that the three-year limit in R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14(b) applied to his § 12-5.1-13 claim, and the court agreed. It held the claim was time-barred: the employer installed monitoring software on his work computer once, in June 2011, and its later use of the captured information to defend itself in litigation was a consequence of that single act that did not restart the clock. The claim accrued no later than January 2012, and he sued in 2016.
More Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island Recording Laws
More Rhode Island Recording Topics
More Rhode Island Laws
- Rhode Island AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Rhode Island Dashcam Laws
- Rhode Island Data Privacy Laws
- Rhode Island Deepfake Laws
- Rhode Island Employee Monitoring Laws
- Rhode Island GPS Tracking Laws
- Rhode Island Police Bodycam Laws
- Rhode Island Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record my boss in Rhode Island?
Yes, as a participant in the conversation, as long as the recording is not for criminal, tortious, or injurious purposes. Company policies may restrict recording.
Can my employer put cameras in the workplace in Rhode Island?
Yes, in common areas. Rhode Island law bars employers from making any audio or video recording of employees in a restroom, locker room, or employer-designated changing room unless a court authorizes it (R.I. Gen. Laws Section 28-6.12-1), and an employee can sue for damages and attorney's fees. Capturing intimate areas for a sexual purpose is also video voyeurism under R.I. Gen. Laws Section 11-64-2.
Can I be fired for recording at work in Rhode Island?
Yes. Rhode Island is at-will. However, the recording itself is legal and can be used as evidence.
Can workplace recordings be used as evidence?
Yes. Lawfully made recordings are generally admissible in Rhode Island courts and administrative proceedings.
Does the NLRA protect workplace recording?
It can. The NLRA protects concerted activity, such as employees documenting unsafe conditions or pay problems together or on behalf of coworkers, and recording can be part of that. It does not protect every recording, and it does not cover supervisors. Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), a blanket no-recording policy is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable employee could read it as chilling Section 7 protected concerted activity, and the employer must show a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a narrower rule. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 2025) was a housekeeping rescission and did not reinstate Boeing. Stericycle remains the Board's standard for judging workplace rules, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it.
Updates
Added the employer rebuttal step to the description of the NLRB Stericycle test for no-recording policies.
We corrected this page to say that Rhode Island law flatly bars employers from recording employees in restrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms, that a private-employer wiretap damages claim under 12-5.1-13 is not settled and Boudreau decided only a conceded limitation period on a single act, that the NLRA protects recording only as part of concerted activity, and that the current Board may revisit Stericycle.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Fixed a mischaracterized court ruling: Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls held a workplace wiretap claim's limitations clock runs from the act of interception itself, not from when the plaintiff later discovers it. Replaced a dead OSHA whistleblower link with the current one, and clarified that the workplace camera restriction in bathrooms and changing areas applies to cameras used for a sexual purpose under the voyeurism statute.
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.
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 11: Criminal Offenses, Chapter 11-35: Public Utilities
§ 11-35-21Unauthorized interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic, or oral communicationIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in chapter 5.1 of title 12, any person: (1) who willfully intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (2) who willfully discloses or attempts to disclose to any person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing, or having reason to know that the information was obtained through interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this section; or (3) who willfully uses or attempts to use the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing, or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this section; shall be imprisoned for not more than five (5) years. (b) The provisions of subdivisions (a)(2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from those contents, which has become common knowledge or public information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walden v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI (2010) held municipalities are not persons who may be sued under sections 11-35-21 and 12-5.1-13. The earlier Walden v. City of Providence (2007) held this section is criminal but that R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-2 supplies a civil right of action for its violation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…Stat. § 165.540 (1997); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (2000); R. I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 (2000); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601 (…”
- Walden v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2010, 596 F.3d 38)“…te, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.; Rhode Island's wiretap laws, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 11-35-21, 12-5.1-13; and the state'…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…43 (1998); 18 Pa Cons Stat. Ann. §§ 5703, 5725 (West 1999); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 (1998); Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-13-601 to…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Rhode Island Enacts AI Recording Consent Laws for Health Care, Rhode Island Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, Rhode Island Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 12: Criminal Procedure, Chapter 12-5.1: Interception of Wire and Oral Communications
§ 12-5.1-13Civil remedyIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
(a) Any person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses the communications, and shall be entitled to recover from that person: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages, computed at the rate of one hundred dollars ($100) per day for each day of violation, or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is higher; (2) Punitive damages; and (3) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation disbursements reasonably incurred. (b) Good faith reliance on a court order issued under this chapter shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this section or any other law. Any communications common carrier and its employees shall be deemed to have acted in good faith upon receipt of a certified copy of the court order issued under this chapter and the representations of the attorney general or an assistant attorney general specially designated by the attorney general.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2010
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Walden v. City of Providence (District Court, D. Rhode Island 2007, 495 F. Supp. 2d 245)“…son who intercepts, discloses, or uses the communications.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-13. Thus, where an interception is made in…”
- Walden v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2010, 596 F.3d 38)“…scloses, or uses the communications" at issue. R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-13(a). Further, recovery is "from that pe…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Rhode Island Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Rhode Island Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide (2026), Rhode Island AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 9: Courts and Civil Procedure
§ 9-1-14Limitation of actions for words spoken or personal injuriesIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
(a) Actions for words spoken shall be commenced and sued within one year next after the words spoken, and not after. (b) Actions for injuries to the person shall be commenced and sued within three (3) years next after the cause of action shall accrue, and not after, except as provided for otherwise in subsection (c) herein. Notwithstanding anything herein, any claim based on sexual abuse or exploitation of a child shall be governed by § 9-1-51. (c) As to an action for personal injuries wherein an injured party is entitled to proceed against an insurer pursuant to § 27-7-2, where an action is otherwise properly filed against an insured within the time limitations provided for by this section, and process against the insured tortfeasor has been returned “non estinventus” and filed with the court, then the statutory limitation for filing an action under § 27-7-2 directly against an insurer shall be extended an additional one hundred twenty (120) days after the expiration of the time limitation provided for in subsection (b) herein.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Cited in 44 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kelly v. Marcantonio (Supreme Court of Rhode Island 1996, 678 A.2d 873)“…xual abuse of a minor governed by R.I.Gen. Laws § 9-1-51 or R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-1-14(b) when the claim is asserted against s…”
- Sanzi v. Shetty, 00-4523 (2002) (Superior Court of Rhode Island 2002)“…tatute of limitation applicable to personal injury actions, R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14 , applies to an action for wrongful dea…”
- Rowey v. Children's Friend and Service, 98-0136 (2003) (Superior Court of Rhode Island 2003)“…atute of Limitations Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14 (b), the three-year statute of limitati…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Rhode Island Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Rhode Island Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim, Rhode Island Defamation Laws: Libel & Slander (2026)
Sources and References
- R.I. § 11-35-21(law.justia.com)
- NLRA(nlrb.gov).gov
- OSHA Whistleblower Protection Program(whistleblowers.gov).gov
- RI Human Rights(richr.ri.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 - Unauthorized Interception(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(eeoc.gov).gov