Judge says more women can join lawsuit over hidden camera in John Hancock locker room

"Seven women who were spied on in a John Hancock locker room got the green light to join a lawsuit against the company six years after the voyeurism took place. In an order issued on Nov. 17, Suffolk Superior Court Judge David Deakin ruled that the additional women should have come forward sooner, but since the delay didn't unfairly harm John Hancock, they can join the case."

"A hidden camera connected to a live feed was discovered on June 6, 2019, in the ceiling of a women's gym locker room at the former John Hancock headquarters, located at 601 Congress St. At the time, no employees were working in the building, as the company had relocated to its Back Bay location. According to a WBUR report, the additional women said they did not come forward sooner because they had trusted the company to properly investigate the incident. However, following the 2022 lawsuit first brought by Jane Doe 1, the women came to believe that John Hancock mishandled the probe."

"According to court records cited by WBUR, the company waited 49 days before notifying police and employees. Invoices also show that the same type of camera found in the locker room ceiling was bought with company funds, according to the report. The company has said the camera wasn't recording. However, the plaintiffs are seeking damages to cover the costs of a comprehensive digital search of their images."

Seven women who were spied on in a John Hancock locker room were allowed to join a lawsuit six years after the voyeurism. Suffolk Superior Court Judge David Deakin found that the women should have come forward sooner but that the delay did not unfairly harm John Hancock. A hidden camera connected to a live feed was discovered on June 6, 2019, in the ceiling of a women's gym locker room at the former John Hancock headquarters at 601 Congress St. The women said they initially trusted the company to investigate. Court records show the company waited 49 days before notifying police and employees, and invoices indicate a similar camera was purchased with company funds. John Hancock has said the camera was not recording. Plaintiffs seek damages to fund a comprehensive digital search of their images. No one has been charged with spying.

Read at Boston.com