Oklahoma Federal Court Rules Invasion of Privacy Sufficient for Employee Emotional Distress Claims

Author: Michael C. Jacobson, XpertHR Legal Editor

September 18, 2013

Employees may claim intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) when their employers intentionally invade their privacy for the purpose of obtaining support for wrongful termination decisions an Oklahoma federal court held in Murphy v. Spring, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130231 (N.D. Ok. 2013).

This ruling potentially makes it easier for employees to claim emotional distress in connection with allegations of wrongful termination or retaliation, which could raise the stakes in wrongful termination lawsuits.

In Murphy, the employee, a support staff member of a public school, reported endangerment of students and misappropriation of school funds to the school administration. Members of the administration then allegedly gained fraudulent access to the employee's private email account, and used the evidence obtained from that illegal "snooping" activity to support a decision to terminate the employee.

The court found that "bad faith" retaliation of this nature could be sufficient to add a claim for IIED to an existing lawsuit for wrongful discharge or retaliation. It reasoned that invasion of an employee's privacy by fraudulently gaining access to a personal email account was sufficient for an IIED claim because it met the standard of conduct "highly offensive to a reasonable person" or "outrageous."

If the employee can successfully prove her IIED claim it can increase the verdict by adding penalties for the employee's emotional pain or distress on top of a verdict that otherwise would only cover lost wages or benefits.

This ruling is potentially significant for employers in other states because claims for IIED in most states require a showing of "outrageous and/or highly offensive conduct," a standard that is notoriously difficult for employees to reach. This ruling presents a potentially clear path for IIED claims in this jurisdiction, and could be considered "persuasive" to other courts in other states.

Finally, given that many states have passed laws addressing social media privacy protections for employees, the connection between this kind of bad faith eavesdropping and IIED claims is concerning. Employers should educate their managers and supervisors regarding the implications of privacy violations and should also implement reporting and complaint resolution procedures to handle invasion of privacy complaints swiftly and effectively, before litigation begins.