Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

order to maintain a cause of action for public disclosure of private facts as facts can be just as widely disclosed through oral media as through written media.

Indirect public disclosure can also support a claim for violation of privacy rights. In the unpublished Ninth Circuit case Tecza v. University of San Francisco 15 , the university promised in its Student Handbook to keep all information about a student’s disability confidential. However, school official discussions in front of others revealed that the student was receiving testing accommodations. This in essence revealed that the student had a disability. Thus, the court permitted a lawsuit to move forward on the theory of breach of contract and tortious disclosure of private facts. The court also suggested that the lower court should also have considered a claim for violation of the student’s constitutional right of privacy. Colleges should be very careful to treat all medical information confidentially. Supervisors and managers should only be informed of restrictions on the work or duties of employees with disabilities and necessary reasonable accommodations. Co-workers should not be informed of the nature of the disability affecting an employee. Divulging medical information can violate a number of California and federal laws, including the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Family Rights Act, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). A publication is privileged and is not actionable if it is made by someone with an interest in the matter to another person also holding an interest in the matter. 16 Courts have found an interest exists between an employer and its employees, and between a prior employer and a prospective employer. 17 The privilege to speak can be lost, however, if malice exists in the communication or if the publication goes beyond what is necessary to satisfy the mutual interest that creates the privilege. In contrast, a claim of intrusion upon seclusion does not involve a publication, but rather an unreasonable and highly offensive intrusion upon a person’s solitude or private life. 18 These types of claims can arise when an employer requires an individual to divulge information about himself or herself or when an employer conducts an investigation of an employee. To determine whether an intrusion is reasonable, the courts examine factors including whether the means used are abnormal and whether the purpose for intruding is proper.

Not all intrusions are improper. For example, no right of privacy exists for matters or things within the public domain or in places one typically expects others to be. 19

The final type of privacy tort is seldom, if ever, asserted in the employment relationship. It involves use of someone’s name or likeness for commercial purposes without his or her consent.

3. F EDERAL AND C ALIFORNIA S TATUTES There is also a vast array of statutes resulting from legislation passed by Congress and the California legislature that prohibit specific types of privacy intrusions and provide bases for recovery by employees, and, in some cases, government prosecutors. For example, Labor Code section 432.7 prohibits an employer from seeking or using arrest records of job applicants. Many of these statutes are discussed in more detail in the sections to which they apply below.

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2019 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 13

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online