An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 10 - Privacy Rights Of Students And Employees

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. 1660 Publication must generally be to the public or to a large group of people. 1661 Publication can be either orally or in writing. In Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc. 1662 , 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. In 2008, 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 that information was revealed, the employee’s 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 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. LCW Practice Advisor Schools should treat all medical information as

confidential. 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. 1663 Courts have found an interest exists between an employer and its employees, and between a prior employer and a prospective employer. 1664 The privilege can be lost, however, if malice exists in the communication or if the publication goes beyond what is necessary to satisfy the mutual interest between the parties that creates the privilege. A claim may also be brought where there is an unreasonable and highly offensive intrusion upon a person’s solitude or private life. 1665 These types of claims can arise when a school requires an individual to divulge information about himself or herself or when a school conducts an investigation of an employee.

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 374