C.L.D. v. Wall-Mart Stores, Inc.
79 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1999 WL 1318687, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20457 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the tort of publication of private facts, 'publicity' requires disclosure to the public at large or to a large number of people, such that the matter is substantially certain to become public knowledge; disclosure to a small group of coworkers is insufficient.
Facts:
- In August 1995, C.L.D. began working for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and signed an 'Associate Handbook' mentioning an 'Open Door Policy' that encouraged employees to discuss matters 'in confidence' with management.
- In September 1996, C.L.D. learned she was pregnant and decided to terminate the pregnancy.
- In early October 1996, C.L.D. privately met with her assistant manager, John Enright, to request medical leave.
- During the meeting, C.L.D. voluntarily disclosed to Enright that she was pregnant and 'losing the baby' to legitimize her request for leave.
- Upon her return from medical leave, C.L.D. alleges that three of her coworkers knew about her pregnancy and abortion.
- C.L.D. inferred Enright must have been the source of the information, as he was the only Wal-Mart employee she had told.
- In February 1997, C.L.D. voluntarily terminated her employment following a romantic affair with a coworker.
Procedural Posture:
- C.L.D. (plaintiff) filed an action against her former employer, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (defendant), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
- The complaint included claims for tortious invasion of privacy, promissory estoppel, and violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
- A Magistrate Judge granted C.L.D.'s motion to amend her complaint to include the invasion of privacy claim.
- The Magistrate Judge also ordered the case file to be sealed to protect the plaintiff's identity.
- Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss all of C.L.D.'s claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the disclosure of an employee's private medical information to a few coworkers constitute 'publicity' sufficient to sustain a claim for the tort of publication of private facts under Minnesota law?
Opinions:
Majority - Tunheim, J.
No, the disclosure of an employee's private information to a few coworkers does not constitute 'publicity' sufficient to sustain a claim for publication of private facts. To satisfy the element of 'publicity' for this tort, the matter must be communicated to the public at large or to so many people that it is substantially certain to become public knowledge. The court, lacking direct guidance from Minnesota's highest court on this newly recognized tort, adopted the definition from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, which explicitly distinguishes 'publicity' from the 'publication' standard in defamation. Communication to a small group of people, as alleged here, does not meet this high threshold. Additionally, the court found the 'Open Door Policy' language too vague to constitute a 'clear and definite promise' required for a promissory estoppel claim, and it dismissed the human rights claim for lack of evidence of severe or pervasive harassment.
Analysis:
This decision provides a significant early interpretation of the tort of publication of private facts after it was first recognized in Minnesota by the case of Lake v. Wal-Mart. By adopting the narrow Restatement definition of 'publicity,' the court establishes a high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in workplace privacy disputes, clarifying that typical office gossip or disclosure to a small number of colleagues is not legally actionable under this tort. The ruling reinforces that such claims require widespread dissemination, effectively limiting the tort's application to scenarios where private information becomes broadly public. This holding significantly impacts employment law by protecting employers from liability for minor, contained disclosures of employee information within the workplace.
