(Employer’s Verbal Disclosure of Employee’s Medical Condition May Be Illegal)
MELISSA Ignat worked for Yum! Brands, the corporate parent of several fast-food franchises, such as Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC. Yum employed Melissa between 2005 and 2008 in the Yum Real Estate Title Department, in Irvine.
Melissa suffered from bipolar disorder, for which she was being treated with medications. The side effects of medication adjustments occasionally forced Melissa to miss work.
After returning from an absence in mid-2008, Mary Shipma, her immediate supervisor, informed her that Shipma had told everyone in the department Melissa was bipolar. Melissa said that her coworkers subsequently avoided and shunned her, and one of them asked Shipma if Melissa was likely to “go postal” at work.
Melissa was terminated in early September 2008. She filed suit against Yum! Brands and Shipma, alleging one cause of action for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts.
The employer asked the court to resolve the case and issue a judgment without a trial. The employer argued that (1) Shipma never told the title department about Melissa’s disorder; (2) Shipma did not disclose Melissa’s disorder in writing; (3) the disclosure was not highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (4) Melissa had already revealed her condition to some people in the department and therefore had no expectation of privacy.
The trial court decided in favor of the employer, on the ground that the right of privacy can be violated only by a writing, not by word of mouth. Because Melissa had not produced any document disclosing private facts, she could not pursue this cause of action. The trial court lamented the “irrationality” of this rule, but felt it had no choice but to follow case law. Melissa appealed the decision of the trial court.
In its analysis of the case, the Court of Appeal stated that the rule requiring the privacy violation to be in writing is outmoded and interferes with a person’s right to privacy without any corresponding benefit to any other right or policy. Other restrictions on liability for invasion of privacy serve other important interests, such as free speech or freedom of the press. However, no good reason exists for restricting liability to written disclosures. Oral disclosures can be just as harmful.
The court concluded that the purpose of privacy protection is “to allow a person to control the kind of information about himself made available to the public — in essence, to define his public persona. While this restriction may have made sense in the 1890’s — when no one dreamed of talk radio or confessional television — it certainly makes no sense now. Private facts can be just as widely disclosed — if not more so — through oral media as through written ones. To allow a plaintiff redress for one kind of disclosure but not the other, when both can be equally damaging to privacy, is a rule better suited to an era when the town crier was the principal purveyor of news. It is long past time to discard this outmoded rule.”
The California Constitution guarantees the right to privacy: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”
The right to privacy has been construed to impose limitations on an employer’s improper use of information, even where such information was properly obtained. Invasion of privacy claims may be made where there is improper disclosure of the reasons for an employee’s termination, disclosure of protected medical information, baseless drug tests, or unreasonably intrusive investigations.
* * *
C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is an experienced trial attorney who has successfully obtained significant results, including several million dollar recoveries for consumers against insurance companies and employers. He has been selected as a Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum – a prestigious group of trial lawyers whose membership is limited to those who have demonstrated exceptional skill, experience and excellence in advocacy. He has been featured in the cover of Los Angeles Daily Journal’s Verdicts and Settlements for his professional accomplishments and recipient of numerous awards from community and media organizations. His litigation practice concentrates in the following areas: wage and hour (overtime) litigation, serious personal injuries, wrongful death, insurance claims, and unfair business practices. His law firm is currently class counsel to thousands of employees seeking payment of wages in California courts. You can visit his website at www.joesayaslaw.com or contact his office by telephone at (818) 291-0088. Inquiries to his law office are welcome and at no cost.