Supervisor Violated Privacy Rights by Disclosing Worker's Mental Disability

Human resources managers know better than to disclose private medical information about employees. Supervisors may not.

In a recent California appellate court case titled Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc., the company learned what legal misfortunes are in store when a supervisor does not understand workplace privacy. Melissa Ingat worked for Yum! Brands, the corporate parent of several fast food franchises, such as Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC.

Yum employed Ignat in its Real Estate Title Department. Ms. Ignat suffered from bipolar disorder, for which she was being treated with medications. Sometimes these were effective, sometimes not. Side effects of medication adjustments occasionally forced Ms. Ignat to miss work. Apparently her co-workers did not know she was bipolar. But that changed when a supervisor gossiped about her condition during one leave of absence.

After that, Ms. Ignat's coworkers allegedly avoided and shunned her. The employee filed suit against Yum! Brands and the supervisor, for "invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts." The company denied that the supervisor had discussed the employee's mental illness, and claimed that the employee herself had disclosed her condition to some of her co-workers.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Yum! on a technicality. It ruled that the legal claim for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts required that the disclosure be made in writing, not verbally.

On appeal, the court reversed the ruling, finding that the law does not require that the disclosure be in writing. A claim for invasion of privacy by disclosure of private facts includes the following elements: (1) public disclosure (2) of a private fact (3) which would be offensive and objectionable to the reasonable person and (4) which is not of legitimate public concern.

The legal claim has its origins in Roaring Twenties Hollywood. In a 1931 case titled Melvin v. Reid, a reformed prostitute who had married and led a respectable life for some years became the subject of a 1925 silent movie, "The Red Kimono," closely based on the lurid details of her former life. Although an actress played her character, the film used her real name. Inexplicably, it appears that the filmmakers also went out of their way to reveal her married name. She sued for invasion of privacy and other causes of action.

n that case, the court ruled that the right of privacy can only be violated by printings, writings, pictures, or other permanent publications or reproductions, and not by word of mouth. In the Yum! case, the court rejected the restriction that the legal claim cannot be raised where the revelation of private facts is made verbally.

Accordingly, the claim against Yum! and its supervisor based on verbal comments about the mental disability could proceed. Workplace Privacy Disclosure of private facts is not the only way an employer might violate an employee's right to privacy. Legal analysts note that privacy interests generally fall into two categories: (1) "Informational privacy" which precludes disclosing sensitive and confidential information; and (2) "Autonomy privacy" which gives employees the right to making intimate personal decisions or conducting personal activities without observation or interference.

Invasion of privacy claims are often seen in the following circumstances, among others: • Disclosure of medical information. • Suspicionless drug tests, except pre-hire exams and certain random drug tests. • Disclosure of reasons for termination to those not privileged to know. • Monitoring computer use or emails, video surveillance, secret audio recordings, where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. • Searches of employees and their property, with exceptions. • Unreasonably intrusive investigations.

Before intruding into any of these areas, a company should consult with legal counsel to ensure that it is lawful. Medical information and other sensitive data about employee should be stored in a secured location with limited access.

Exercise control and care when disclosing information to company representatives for a variety of legitimate business reasons, including accommodations.

Fundamentally, employers should train supervisors to refrain from disclosing confidential information about employees.

Source: Ceridian, 4/18/2013

For additional information contact The Whitford Group, 704 298-2115 phone, 704 772-0735 fax or TheWhitfordGroup@gmail.com