Linda Fletcher v. Price Chopper Foods of Trumann, Inc.
220 F.3d 871 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim for intrusion upon seclusion, a plaintiff must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy, which is lost when the private information is voluntarily disclosed to others. Furthermore, an intrusion is not 'highly offensive' if the information could have been obtained through proper legal channels, especially when it pertains to an employee's fitness for work.
Facts:
- Linda Fletcher worked as a deli cook for Price Chopper Foods (PCF) and was a diabetic who had previously had a leg amputated.
- In July 1997, Fletcher developed a diabetic ulcer on her right foot.
- On September 29, 1997, Fletcher spilled hot gravy on the foot with the ulcer, and in connection with this workplace incident, she signed a workers' compensation form that included a medical information release authorization.
- In early October 1997, Fletcher learned the ulcer had developed a staph infection and immediately informed two of her coworkers.
- Fletcher's coworkers informed store management, and corporate manager Marlene Sawyer terminated Fletcher's employment, citing Arkansas health regulations regarding communicable diseases in the food industry.
- After her termination, Fletcher applied for state unemployment benefits, claiming in her application that she did not have a staph infection at the time she was fired.
- To resolve this inconsistency, Sawyer contacted Fletcher's doctor's office and faxed the medical authorization from the workers' compensation form to confirm that Fletcher was, in fact, infected with staph.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Fletcher sued Price Chopper Foods (PCF) in federal district court, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA.
- Fletcher was permitted to amend her complaint to add state-law tort claims for invasion of privacy and outrage.
- The district court granted summary judgment to PCF on the outrage claim.
- The ADA and invasion of privacy claims were tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict for PCF on the ADA claim but found PCF liable on the invasion of privacy claim, awarding Fletcher $5,000 in compensatory and $50,000 in punitive damages.
- PCF renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law.
- The district court granted the motion as to the punitive damages award but denied it as to the underlying invasion of privacy claim.
- Fletcher (as appellant) appealed the dismissal of her punitive damages to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and PCF (as cross-appellant) appealed the court's refusal to dismiss the invasion of privacy claim.
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 an employer commit the tort of intrusion upon seclusion by using a medical authorization from a workers' compensation form to obtain an employee's medical information after that employee has been terminated, when the employee had already disclosed that same information to coworkers and the information pertained to her fitness for work?
Opinions:
Majority - Bye, Circuit Judge
No, the employer's actions did not constitute intrusion upon seclusion. To prove this tort, a plaintiff must show: (1) an intrusion, (2) that is highly offensive, and (3) into a matter in which there is a legitimate expectation of privacy. While Sawyer's use of the workers' compensation authorization for an unrelated purpose was an intrusion, her conduct was not 'highly offensive' as a matter of law because PCF could have obtained the same information through proper legal means, such as a subpoena during the unemployment benefits proceeding. Most importantly, Fletcher failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy for two reasons: first, she voluntarily disclosed her staph infection to coworkers, thereby eliminating her privacy interest by making it a topic of office conversation. Second, her condition was a matter of legitimate concern to her employer regarding her fitness to work in the food service industry, which further diminished her right to privacy in that specific information.
Concurring - McMillian, Circuit Judge
No, the employer's actions did not constitute intrusion upon seclusion. I agree with the outcome but for the more limited reason that Fletcher failed to establish the third element of her claim. By voluntarily telling two coworkers about her staph infection, she acted in a manner inconsistent with an intent to maintain privacy in that information. This failure to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy is, by itself, sufficient to defeat her claim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of the intrusion upon seclusion tort in the employment context. It establishes that an employee's voluntary disclosure of private medical information to even a small number of coworkers can extinguish their legal expectation of privacy regarding that information. The ruling also sets a high bar for the 'highly offensive' element, suggesting that if information could have been obtained through legitimate legal processes, using an improper method to get it may not be tortious. This precedent makes it more difficult for employees to succeed on privacy claims against employers, particularly when the information relates to public health or fitness for duty.
Unlock the full brief for Linda Fletcher v. Price Chopper Foods of Trumann, Inc.