Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc.
35 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 555, 214 Cal. App. 4th 808, 154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 275 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common law cause of action for the tort of public disclosure of private facts does not require that the disclosure be made in a writing. An oral disclosure is sufficient to support a claim.
Facts:
- Melissa Ignat worked for Yum! Brands, Inc. from 2005 to 2008, where Mary Shipma was her immediate supervisor.
- Ignat suffered from bipolar disorder, and side effects from her medication occasionally required her to miss work.
- After returning from an absence in mid-2008, Shipma allegedly told Ignat that she (Shipma) had informed everyone in the department that Ignat was bipolar.
- Following the alleged disclosure, Ignat's coworkers began to avoid and shun her.
- One coworker reportedly asked Shipma if Ignat was likely to "go postal" at work.
- Ignat's employment was terminated in early September 2008.
Procedural Posture:
- Melissa Ignat filed a complaint in a state trial court against Yum! Brands, Inc. and Mary Shipma, alleging a single cause of action for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, basing its ruling solely on the ground that the alleged disclosure was oral and not in writing, which it believed was a required element of the tort.
- A judgment of dismissal was entered against Ignat.
- Ignat, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of dismissal to the California Court of Appeal, with Yum! Brands and Shipma as the respondents.
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 a common law cause of action for public disclosure of private facts require the disclosure to be in writing?
Opinions:
Majority - Bedsworth, Acting P. J.
No. A cause of action for public disclosure of private facts does not require the disclosure to be in writing. The historical rule requiring a written publication originated in unsupported dictum from an old case (Melvin v. Reid) and is an outmoded principle that is contrary to the tort's purpose of allowing individuals to control their public persona. The court reasoned that in the modern era, oral disclosures through various media can be as widespread and damaging as written ones, and there is no logical distinction to justify immunizing oral statements from liability. The court explicitly discarded the rule, stating that the test for liability should turn on the nature of the privacy invaded, not the means of communication.
Analysis:
This decision modernizes California tort law by eliminating the anachronistic requirement that a public disclosure of private facts must be in writing. It significantly broadens potential liability for invasion of privacy, making individuals and entities accountable for harmful oral disclosures, such as workplace gossip. The ruling rejects a poorly-founded, century-old dictum and aligns the tort with the realities of modern communication, where spoken words can be disseminated as widely and cause as much harm as printed ones. Future litigation in this area will no longer be defeated at the outset by the medium of disclosure but will instead focus on the substantive elements of the tort.
Unlock the full brief for Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc.