Employer Liability Case Analysis

Lesson 4, Case 1 Analysis

Rebecca

Analysis:

        Assuming that the religious bookstore is a privately held and operated company, it is possible that Coworker “A” exposed its employer to liability when disclosing that Margo had extramarital sex and an abortion when she was a teenager to the rest of the staff, which therefore caused Margo to be ostracized.  In consideration of the privately held and operated company, the private sector does not have broad rights to privacy and generally does not prompt protections under the constitution as those protections were intended for governmental extremes (Bennett- Alexander, Hartman, 2015). According to Bennett-Alexander and Hartman, “An employment action by a private employer is considered to be a private action” (Bennett-Alexander, Hartman, 2015). However, some states do offer protection from torts under common law. Another factor to consider is Margo’s employment-at-will status. Margo has the right to leave the company at any time, without any warning, for any reason or no reason at all just as the employer may terminate employment with Margo at any time, for any reason other than an illegal reason, or no reason at all. Often times, the employee’s only course of action is to quit, comply, or object and risk termination (Bennett-Alexander, Hartman, 2015). Again, while protections under federal law is not likely, Margo could find protection under common law, which is based on precedence from prior case law, or by statue.

        Margo’s cause of action is the tort of public disclosure of private facts. Her damage is being ostracized by all of her coworkers at work.  Margo is able to establish a tort of public disclosure of private facts claim because “there was an intentional or negligent public disclosure… of private matters, and… such disclosure would be objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensitivities” (Bennett-Alexander-Hartman, 2015). Consider the case of Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc.,2013 as an example case of a tort of public disclosure of private facts. In this case, Ignat sued Yum! Brands, Inc. for disclosing to coworkers that she suffered from bipolar disorder. Because the disclosure was not in writing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Yum! Brands, Inc and Ignat could not purse this cause of action.  However, the court of appeals thought otherwise. The court of appeals held that the disclosure need not be in writing and that oral disclosures are just as harmful.  In the end, the judgment of dismissal was revered (Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc., 2013). Further analyzing the case of Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc 2013. and Margo’s situation the “truth and absence of malice are generally not acceptable defense by an employer sued for invasion of an employee’s privacy”(Bennett-Alexander, Hartman, 2015). One can see similarities between the two cases and may even predict a similar fate for the religious bookstore.