Johnson v. Mithun
401 F.Supp.2d 964, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34715, 2005 WL 3216718 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Minnesota law, the tort of publication of private facts requires 'publicity,' which means the private matter is communicated to the public at large or to so many persons that it is substantially certain to become public knowledge; disclosure to a small group of approximately 12-15 business associates does not meet this standard.
Facts:
- In May 2001, Jennifer Johnson became a Vice President and Creative Director at Campbell Mithun (CM).
- In June 2002, Johnson was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) and disclosed her diagnosis to her supervisor, Rick Gibson, before taking medical leave.
- Johnson specifically told her CM colleagues not to disclose her diagnosis to anyone else.
- While Johnson was on leave, a CM employee informed a contact at a client, St. Ives, about Johnson's MS diagnosis.
- Subsequently, CM sent a letter disclosing Johnson's MS diagnosis to various people at St. Ives, a market research team, and within CM.
- Approximately twelve to fifteen people in total saw or received the letter containing Johnson's private medical information.
- Johnson did not authorize this disclosure and was horrified to learn it had occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson filed a lawsuit against her former employer, defendant Campbell Mithun, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
- The complaint alleged violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and the common law tort of invasion of privacy.
- Defendant Campbell Mithun filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss all of Johnson's claims before trial.
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's disclosure of an employee's medical diagnosis to approximately 12 to 15 colleagues and clients constitute 'publicity' sufficient to sustain a claim for the tort of publication of private facts?
Opinions:
Majority - Tunheim, District Judge
No. An employer's disclosure of an employee's medical diagnosis to approximately 12 to 15 colleagues and clients does not constitute 'publicity' for a publication of private facts claim. To establish a claim for publication of private facts, the plaintiff must show the defendant gave 'publicity' to a private matter. Citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts and the Minnesota Supreme Court case Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., the court defined 'publicity' as communicating the matter 'to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge.' The court found that disclosure to a small group of 12-15 people does not meet this high standard, as there was no indication the information was shared in the media or any other form accessible to the general public. Therefore, Johnson's claim for publication of private facts fails as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This opinion reinforces the high threshold for the 'publicity' element in a publication of private facts tort claim under Minnesota law. It clarifies that even an unauthorized and offensive disclosure of sensitive information within a professional context to a limited group does not rise to the level of public dissemination required for liability. This decision narrows the applicability of the tort in workplace settings, distinguishing between limited internal or business-to-business communications and true public disclosure, thereby protecting employers from liability for disclosures that are not made to the public at large.
