Remote Work Under the Microscope: Woman Dismissed After Keystroke Tracking

 Remote Work Under the Microscope: Woman Dismissed After Keystroke Tracking

In one of the most talked ‑ about workplace stories in recent years, an Australian employee lost her job after her employer used keystroke tracking technology to evaluate her productivity while she worked remotely - raising broad concerns about employee surveillance, privacy, workplace fairness, and the evolving nature of performance measurement in an era of digital monitoring.

The Case: Long ‑ Serving Employee Dismissed Over “Low Keystroke Activity”

The woman at the center of the case, Suzie Cheikho, worked for nearly 18 years as a consultant at Insurance Australia Group (IAG), one of Australia's largest insurers. In February 2023, her employment was terminated after IAG reviewed data from monitoring software installed on her company laptop while she was working from home.

According to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) - Australia's national workplace tribunal that hears employment disputes - the evidence showed:

Cheikho did not work her rostered hours on 44 of 49 monitored working days.

She started late on 47 of those days.

On 29 days she logged off early.

There were zero keystrokes recorded for hundreds of hours during the monitored period.

On days she was logged in, her average typing rate was far below what IAG expected for her largely data ‑ entry role.

The company argued this showed she was "not presenting for work and performing work as required," a finding the FWC accepted when it dismissed her claim of unfair dismissal.

What Keystroke Tracking Actually Measures

Keystroke tracking is a form of workplace surveillance software that logs every key press an employee makes on a company ‑ issued device. In many cases, it also records mouse movement, activity levels, and - in some systems - intermittent screenshots of the user's screen.

While intended to provide a quantitative measure of “active work,” this technology captures a narrow slice of an employee’s day - essentially how much they are typing - and applies it as a proxy for productivity. It does not measure task quality, decision ‑ making, collaboration, meetings, phone calls, research or other non ‑ typing work that may be central to many roles.

The Legal Outcome: Tribunal Backs the Employer

Cheikho challenged her dismissal at the FWC, claiming her termination was "unfair" and that the keystroke monitoring did not reflect her actual contribution or work. She also raised personal circumstances, including mental health challenges at the time.

However, the tribunal ultimately found that:

IAG had provided warnings and placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan before termination.

The keystroke data, along with other management findings such as missed deadlines and unexcused absences, constituted a valid reason for dismissal.

The dismissal was therefore not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under workplace law.

As part of the case evidence, the company reported that Cheikho's average keystrokes per hour were well below the expected level for her role, which involved data input and communication.

Employee Reaction and Broader Public Debate

Cheikho's story drew widespread public attention as a potent example of how digital surveillance tools can have real, life ‑ changing impacts on workers - especially those working remotely. After her dismissal, she expressed public concern that the incident might affect her future job prospects - arguing she had never faced such consequences before despite long service.

Critics of the practice argue that relying solely on keystroke counts to assess productivity is overly simplistic and can misrepresent real work, particularly in roles requiring analysis, communication, and problem ‑ solving that may not always involve sustained typing.

Workplace Surveillance: Growing Trend, Growing Controversy

Cheikho's case is part of a broader trend of increasing use of monitoring technologies post ‑ pandemic. As remote and hybrid work arrangements became more common, many employers turned to digital surveillance tools to track remote employee productivity.

A wider body of research and reporting shows that:

Workplace monitoring has surged, tracking not only keystrokes but app usage, emails, screen activity, and even webcam images.

A significant number of employees report feeling anxious, watched, and mistrusted when constant digital surveillance is present.

Many employees are uncertain whether they are being monitored, as clear notification and transparency often lag behind the deployment of these technologies.

Some employers buy into the notion that such technologies improve accountability and output. But many workers, HR experts, and labor advocates counter that excessive monitoring can erode trust, morale, and psychological safety, reducing engagement and creativity rather than enhancing meaningful productivity.

Privacy, Ethics, and Productivity: The Complex Balance

The controversy around keystroke monitoring raises several interconnected questions:

1. Does keystroke data reflect real work?

Typing frequency does not account for time spent in virtual meetings, phone calls, research, planning, or client interactions - all essential elements of many jobs. Monitoring tools that rely on keystroke counts may therefore misjudge productivity, unwittingly penalizing employees whose work cannot be accurately quantified with such metrics.

2. How much privacy can an employer “take” in exchange for oversight?

Even when workers know surveillance is deployed, the constant awareness of being monitored can cause stress and heighten performance anxiety, as documented by workplace surveys and research.

3. Are legal protections keeping pace with technological change?

Different jurisdictions vary in how they regulate workplace surveillance and employee privacy. In some regions employers must provide notice and obtain consent; elsewhere, rules are less clear, creating legal gray zones that workers and employers alike must navigate cautiously.

These factors make it difficult for both HR departments and employees to find a balanced approach that respects privacy while maintaining accountability.

What Employers and Workers Can Learn

The lessons from Cheikho's case and ongoing debates point toward a few key takeaways for modern workplaces:

Clear Policy and Transparency: Employers should clearly inform employees about monitoring technologies, explain why they are being used, and specify how the data will be interpreted.

Holistic Performance Evaluation: Relying on keystrokes or activity logs alone is an incomplete way to measure output. Companies that combine objective data with qualitative assessments, goal outcomes, and manager feedback tend to foster fairer evaluations.

Respect for Employee Dignity: Workplace surveillance that feels intrusive or punitive can damage trust and morale. Building a culture where workers feel trusted and valued can be more effective than relying solely on digital oversight.

Legal Compliance: Employers should ensure their use of tracking tools complies with local privacy laws and workplace regulations, including notice requirements and data protection standards.

Conclusion: A Turning Point in Workplace Culture

The case of Suzie Cheikho - an employee dismissed after keystroke monitoring found she was not typing enough - illustrates the complex intersection of technology, employment law, and workplace culture in the digital age. While employers may seek hard data to measure effort and output, using surveillance tools without appropriate context, transparency, and safeguards can undermine trust and fairness.

As remote and hybrid work models continue to evolve, both companies and employees must navigate the fine line between accountability and intrusion. The broader debate sparked by this case suggests that productivity is not just about numbers on a screen - it's about meaningful contributions, respect for privacy, and trust between workers and their organizations.