Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

The constitutional right of privacy represents a potential limitation on any type of practice or procedure whereby an employer attempts to gather or disseminate private information about an employee or applicant. The actual scope of the limitations placed on the employer must be determined by a careful analysis of the interests involved in each particular case, and by a balancing of those interests. 2. C OMMON L AW T ORTS Employees may seek recovery for interference with their privacy rights under several common- law tort theories. The tort of invasion of privacy encompasses four different types of actions.

These are:

 intrusion upon physical solitude or seclusion;



public disclosure of private facts;

 placing someone in a false light in the public eye; 9 and



appropriation of name or likeness.

The Government Claims Act establishes the limits of common law liability for a public entity. A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person. 10 The common law tort of invasion of privacy may be claimed only against a person in his or her individual (not official) capacity. Case law abolishes common law tort liability for public entities. 11 Claims for the public disclosure of private facts and for false light have been treated similarly by the courts. To support a claim for one of these privacy violations, an individual must show that there was a public disclosure of private facts concerning him or her. The disclosure must have been an unwarranted disclosure of the individual’s private life outside of the realm of legitimate public interest that would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. 12 Publication disclosure means disclosure to the public generally or to a large group of people. 13 Publication can be either orally or in writing. In the 2013 case Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc. 14 , a California court of appeals held an employer was liable for orally disclosing private facts about an employee. In that case, the employee suffered from bipolar disorder and occasionally missed work due to the side effects of her medication. After returning from an absence, the employee’s immediate supervisor informed her that she had told everyone in the department that the employee was bipolar. The employee alleged that after her supervisor revealed her condition, her co-workers shunned her and one of them asked her if she was likely to “go postal” at work. When the employee was terminated a few months later, she sued, alleging one cause of action for invasion of privacy for public disclosure of private facts. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the supervisor did not disclose the employee’s condition in writing. The employee appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed. The Court of Appeals determined that private facts did not have to be disclosed in writing in order to maintain

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2021 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 10