Question

Thomas started work at a local warehouse, and completed all the required paperwork his employer asked him to provide. The employer asked for a photo copy of his Social Security card, a photocopy of his driver's license, and a copy of void check for his checking account so he could get direct deposit of his paychecks. Thomas owed his dentist $2,500 for dental work, and ignored the dentist's numerous demands for payment. The dentist eventually got a judgment against Thomas.

On Thomas's first payday, he sat down and wrote checks for his rent, his car payment, his insurance, and his credit cards. All the checks bounced, and Thomas then found out the dentist had garnished his bank account for the $2,500 judgment; he was wiped out. Thomas discovered that his new employer had shared his personnel file with the attorney for the dentist, because the lawyer had threatened to get a subpoena. To make matters worse, when Thomas confronted his employer, he was fired. Thomas had a terrible time finding a new job, and one of his friends from his old job confided that the HR director at the old company that fired him was telling potential new employers that Thomas was a rabble rouser, and a deadbeat who didn't pay his bills.

Thomas decides to sue his former employer for invasion of his privacy rights. He remembers from his Employment Law class that he might recover under various claims::

Intrusion into Seclusion

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Publication in a False Light

Defamation

1. What theory(s) could Thomas use to sue his employer? List and explain the elements required to prove a prima facie case, and explain whether Thomas's case fits the bill.

2. What theory(s) would NOT work for Thomas's claim against his former employer? Why not?

Answer 1

1. The theories which can be used by Thomas to sue his employer:

· Public Disclosure of Private Facts: Thomas had given his bank account information to his employer for compensation and record keeping purpose. However the employer forwarded the details to the attorney of the dentist who was fighting a legal case against Thomas. Thomas had not given the right to his employer to share his information without his consent. This is clearly invasion to privacy by public disclosure of private facts.

· Publication in False Light: The HR director of the company was calling all potential employers and was telling Thomas was a rabble rouser and a deadbeat who did not pay his bills. Though Thomas had failed to pay his dentist, generalizing it as a fact and disseminating it to potential employers of Thomas is completely invalid and unethical. Thomas has full rights to sue the HR Director as well as the company for Publication in False Light.

· Defamation: Clearly the publication in false light was leading to a defamation case. The HR Director can be accused for slander by Thomas.

2. The theories which cannot be used by Thomas to sue his employer:

· Intrusion into Seclusion: The employer did not physically intruded in Thomas’ life. The bank documents were submitted to the employer by Thomas himself. The employer did not peep or take the bank account information from his bag or phone, without Thomas’ consent. Hence Thomas cannot sue the employer for Intrusion into Seclusion.