Court Rules That Housekeeper Violated Privacy of Waffle House CEO By Taping Sexual Encounters

article-2233524-160C188B000005DC-149_306x423article-2232655-15EE65FC000005DC-48_634x350Cobb County Superior Court Judge Robert Leonard ruled last Friday that a former housekeeper who filmed sex with former Waffle House CEO Joe Rogers had violated his privacy. The housekeeper, Mye Brindle, alleged that Rogers forced her to perform sex acts as a condition for her continued employment.

Brindle made 15 audio recordings and kept a Clintonesque piece of evidence — a towel with Rogers’ DNA.

It is an interesting case since Brindle was a part to the act. However, Rogers did not consent to the filming or the showing of the act to third parties.

Rogers, who is married, still serves as chairman of the company’s board of directors.

There is an allegation that the woman’s attorneys sent her to a private investigator’s office where she was given a spy camera used to record Rogers in his bedroom without his consent. Now there is a question of possible criminal charges, including charges against her counsel who has declined to recuse themselves. There is a motion to disqualify David Cohen and John Butters. Cohen however insists that “We did not advise her to go film him.”

Georgia has an interesting standard for such recordings. It is a one-party consent state for recording: “16-11-66. (a) Nothing in Code Section 16-11-62 shall prohibit a person from intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.” However, it makes it a crime to use a hidden camera without the consent of all parties”

It shall be unlawful for:

(1) Any person in a clandestine manner intentionally to overhear, transmit, or record or attempt to overhear, transmit, or record the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place;

(2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view; provided, however, that it shall not be unlawful:

(A) To use any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons incarcerated in any jail, correctional institution, or any other facility in which persons who are charged with or who have been convicted of the commission of a crime are incarcerated, provided that such equipment shall not be used while the prisoner is discussing his or her case with his or her attorney;

(B) For an owner or occupier of real property to use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are on the property or an approach thereto in areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy; or

(C) To use for security purposes, crime prevention, or crime detection any device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of persons who are within the curtilage of the residence of the person using such device. A photograph, videotape, or record made in accordance with this subparagraph, or a copy thereof, may be disclosed by such resident to the district attorney or a law enforcement officer and shall be admissible in a judicial proceeding, without the consent of any person observed, photographed, or recorded;

(3) Any person to go on or about the premises of another or any private place, except as otherwise provided by law, for the purpose of invading the privacy of others by eavesdropping upon their conversations or secretly observing their activities;

(4) Any person intentionally and secretly to intercept by the use of any device, instrument, or apparatus the contents of a message sent by telephone, telegraph, letter, or by any other means of private communication;

(5) Any person to divulge to any unauthorized person or authority the content or substance of any private message intercepted lawfully in the manner provided for in Code Section 16-11-65;

(6) Any person to sell, give, or distribute, without legal authority, to any person or entity any photograph, videotape, or record, or copies thereof, of the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view without the consent of all persons observed; or

(7) Any person to commit any other acts of a nature similar to those set out in paragraphs (1) through (6) of this Code section which invade the privacy of another.

50 thoughts on “Court Rules That Housekeeper Violated Privacy of Waffle House CEO By Taping Sexual Encounters”

    1. “Bron,
      Hasty, hasty…. Waffles can be tasty….”


      I never eat waffles but they do omelets with cheese, onion and bacon wonderfully and I like their hash browns. When down south though I tell them to hold the grits on the side, wasted calories.

  1. Waffles make the whole world right….

    Now, maybe he has something to do with Bill Clinton’s proclivity….. Was Waffle House his favorite place…..

  2. a waffle is one of the worst foods known to man unless used as a waffle cone for the support of ice cream.

    I hope she shuts down the Waffle House and good ridance to bad rubbish.

    1. “I hope she shuts down the Waffle House and good riddance to bad rubbish.”


      When I’m on the road I like the Waffle House for breakfast and then I don’t have to eat until dinner.

  3. AY,

    Who would turn down more information? Especially if it was accompanied by a tasty waffle?

  4. You knew it was coming…..

    But this just gives you a bad taste……

  5. men in positions of power have no business having sex with subordinates even if consensual.

    We could also apply that to women as well.

  6. How do we know that the sex was provided by her as a condition of her employment? The judge viewed the recordings and in his opinion was there nothing on them that indicated that the sex was an example of an employer violating his female employees rights. The idea of an employer taking sexual advantage of an employee disgusts me, however, I know enough of human interactions to admit that there is also a decent possibility of this being tantamount to a blackmail attempt.

    ” Rogers said the housekeeper worked for him from 2003 until 2008, when she was let go. He said that she reapplied for her job and was rehired as his house manager in late 2009, working in that position until she resigned in June 2012.

    Rogers said that in July 2012, he received a letter from the woman’s attorney’s “containing false allegations and strong threats,” and wanting “millions of dollars” from him.

    Rogers claimed that he shared a “threatening blackmail letter” with his wife and hired attorneys to investigate. He said he initiated court proceedings in September 2012 and that the housekeeper and her attorneys responded with false allegations and a false police report.”

    Unless more evidence of wrongdoing arises, it is he said she said and we should presume Rogers innocence and so the tapes would be inadmissible as evidence.

    1. I disagree with Mike. This is an unequal power relationship. Even a partial consent of the weaker party may not be a complete excuse, and moves into the issue of prostitution. (or Clarence Thomas). While entrapment may be posited as a defense, the reality of the motivations are at issue, to which the video (or the audio portion of the video, or a transcript of the audio portion of the video) seems essential to making an informed judgement.

      1. “This is an unequal power relationship. Even a partial consent of the weaker party may not be a complete excuse, and moves into the issue of prostitution.”


        I understand your disagreement and really can’t argue with it. I must admit that in instances like this I would also presume that there was an inequality of power in the relationship that makes the man into a pig. However, given the evidence presented I don’t think there is enough to presume that this wasn’t a blackmail attempt. As someone who has been in management positions, while a married man, I was scrupulous in my dealings with my employees. There was a time though when a powerful woman in my Agency came on to me and touched me inappropriately, I squirmed away and she didn’t pursue it. It was the only time in my life that I could say that I was sexually harassed. However, that was a single, isolated incident, in a 37 year career. I’m well aware that woman commonly suffer many such indignities during their careers and despise it. Sexuality and power issues being what they are though, we shouldn’t automatically always presume guilt on the man’s part.

  7. Georgia needs to update their statute to make an exception for persons being blackmailed or otherwise coerced. Here is Washington’s

    RCW 9.73.030

    WA is a two party consent state, but there are exceptions. (Excerpt)

    (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.

  8. This law is stupid….

    I’m confused…. Did she video or audio record….

  9. My recollection is that Waffle House has staked itself out as a family-oriented, moralistic operation, although they’ve had various issues related to racial discrimination and sanitation.

  10. It says that cameras can be used for crime prevention or detection. What is the issue? This is your standard abuse of power thing, and cameras are protected by the second amendment: the right to bear arms. Would she need to warn him that she felt his actions were illegal and he was creating a hostile work environment?

  11. It’s hoped Brindle can scrub that drooling,grizzled old mug out of her head. He couldn’t have paid her enough to stick her with that foul memory. Women in every occupation have to be given strong avenues of recourse to prevent this type of degradation.

  12. I can hear the argument now: this is just a he said she said your honor. And our client, he says the she is lying. He never had any sexual encounter with this woman. none your honor. Your honor we have film taken by our client of the actions she was forced to engage in. Your honor we object on the basis of privacy. The judge: The films are out. Now as we were saying this is just a she said he said and our client says that she is lying your honor. He never had any sexual encounter with this woman.

  13. She should have lured this pig, telling him she liked to have sex in public places and taped it. Or, that she liked having sex in front of picture windows, w/ a camera set up in a van on the street. You got to be creative and use your head.

Comments are closed.