Miller v. Motorola, Inc.
148 Ill. Dec. 303, 202 Ill. App. 3d 976, 560 N.E.2d 900 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'publicity' element of the tort of public disclosure of private facts can be satisfied by showing the defendant disclosed private information to a small group of people with whom the plaintiff has a special relationship, such as co-workers.
Facts:
- Joy Y. Miller was an employee of Motorola, Inc. for 23 years.
- Between 1984 and 1986, Miller took three leaves of absence to undergo a mastectomy and subsequent reconstructive surgeries.
- During consultations about her leaves, Motorola's resident nurse, Felicia Masters, assured Miller that her medical information would remain confidential.
- Miller never consented to the release of her medical information.
- On or about October 1, 1987, one of Miller's co-employees informed her that she knew about Miller's mastectomy.
- Miller came to believe that numerous other co-employees were also aware of her medical condition.
- As a result of the disclosure, Miller suffered severe emotional distress and took an early retirement.
Procedural Posture:
- Joy Y. Miller filed a lawsuit against her employer, Motorola, Inc., in the circuit court of Cook County (a trial court).
- Miller's complaint alleged tort claims for public disclosure of private facts and unreasonable intrusion into seclusion.
- The circuit court granted Motorola's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
- Miller, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court.
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 private medical condition to their co-workers satisfy the 'publicity' element required to state a claim for the tort of public disclosure of private facts?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Buckley
Yes, an employer's disclosure of an employee's private medical condition to their co-workers can satisfy the publicity requirement for the tort of public disclosure of private facts. While 'publicity' generally means disclosure to the public at large, an exception exists where a special relationship exists between the plaintiff and the 'public' to whom the information is disclosed. The court reasoned that disclosure to fellow employees can be as devastating as disclosure to the general public, especially for a non-public figure. Citing 'Beaumont v. Brown', the court adopted the position that a 'particular public' such as co-workers is sufficient to meet the publicity element. The court also held that whether the disclosure of a mastectomy is 'highly offensive to a reasonable person' is a question of fact for a jury. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the separate claim for intrusion upon seclusion, finding that since Miller voluntarily provided the information, there was no unauthorized intrusion or prying by Motorola.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of the tort of public disclosure of private facts in Illinois by adopting the 'special relationship' exception to the publicity requirement. Previously, plaintiffs might have needed to show widespread dissemination to the general public. This ruling lowers the threshold for plaintiffs, particularly in employment contexts, allowing claims to proceed based on disclosures within a specific community like a workplace. It establishes a precedent that makes employers more vulnerable to liability for internal breaches of employee medical confidentiality, reinforcing privacy rights within the workplace.
