Robert Bratt v. International Business MacHines Corporation
54 U.S.L.W. 2477, 785 F.2d 352, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 22744 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's violation of its own internal policies protecting the confidentiality of employee information heightens the employee's reasonable expectation of privacy, thereby increasing the substantiality of any intrusion and strengthening a claim for invasion of privacy under a balancing test.
Facts:
- Robert Bratt, an employee of International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), used the company's confidential 'open door' grievance procedure on several occasions between 1971 and 1978 to address issues with promotions and work evaluations.
- In October 1978, feeling stressed over work issues, Bratt told his supervisor, Rita Lynch, about his health concerns and his plan to request a transfer for health reasons.
- Lynch arranged for Bratt to see Dr. Martha Nugent, an independent physician under contract with IBM to perform medical examinations of employees.
- IBM had internal corporate policies stating that employee medical information was confidential and would not be disclosed to management personnel without the employee's prior written consent.
- Bratt never signed a form or otherwise consented to the release of his medical information to IBM management.
- After examining Bratt, Dr. Nugent telephoned Lynch and informed her that Bratt was 'paranoid' and recommended he see a psychiatrist.
- Lynch communicated Dr. Nugent's diagnosis to her own supervisor, Johanna Crawford, who in turn informed IBM Vice-President Wesley Liebtag.
- Liebtag created and distributed internal memoranda to other high-level IBM managers detailing Dr. Nugent's 'paranoid' diagnosis and suggesting Bratt had a 'mental problem that goes beyond IBM'.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Bratt sued IBM, Wesley Liebtag, and Dr. Martha Nugent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for breach of privacy and other claims.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims.
- Bratt, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The First Circuit certified questions of state law to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for clarification.
- Following the state court's response, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of some claims but reversed the summary judgment on the privacy claims, remanding the case to the district court.
- On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment for the defendants on the remaining privacy claims.
- Bratt, as appellant, appealed the second grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
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 sensitive medical information and use of a confidential internal grievance system violate the employee's statutory right to privacy when the employer asserts a legitimate business interest in the information, but the disclosure also contravenes the company's own confidentiality policies?
Opinions:
Majority - Bownes, Circuit Judge.
Yes and no. Disclosure of an employee's use of a confidential grievance process to managers with a legitimate need to know may not be an unreasonable privacy intrusion. However, a jury could find that the disclosure of sensitive medical information by a company's medical staff and a contracted physician to management, in direct violation of the company's own confidentiality policies, constitutes an unreasonable violation of the employee's statutory right to privacy. The balancing test requires weighing the employer's legitimate business interest against the substantiality of the intrusion, and a company's violation of its own privacy rules significantly increases the substantiality of that intrusion. Disclosure of Bratt's 'open door' usage was permissible because the information was not highly personal and was shared with managers who had a legitimate interest. In contrast, the disclosure of his medical diagnosis, which violated IBM's own policies, created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the intrusion was unreasonable. IBM's rules enhanced Bratt's expectation of privacy, and a jury could find the company's interest did not justify violating its own policies. Similarly, a factual issue exists as to whether Dr. Nugent entered into a physician-patient relationship with Bratt, which would impose a strong duty of confidentiality, making her unauthorized disclosure to management a potential privacy violation.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that a company's internal privacy policies can have external legal force in an invasion of privacy lawsuit. The court's reasoning elevates such policies from mere internal guidelines to a critical factor that can create a heightened, legally cognizable expectation of privacy for employees. By ruling that a violation of these policies increases the 'substantiality' of the privacy intrusion, the decision puts employers on notice that they can be held accountable for failing to follow their own rules. Furthermore, the opinion clarifies that a physician-patient relationship, with its attendant duty of confidentiality, can be formed between an employee and a company-retained doctor based on the employee's reasonable belief, impacting how occupational health providers must conduct themselves.
