1. Do you think Yoder should have prevailed on his state law claim of invasion of privacy? Why or why not?

2. Do you think this case would have been decided differently if the mail clerk and Yoder’s supervisor did read the doctor’s statements?

3. How many people would have to read a sensitive document such as this to meet the “public disclosure” requirement for an individual to prevail on his or her claim?

Issue: Whether the employer violated the employee’s right to privacy under the United States Constitution and/or his right to privacy under state common law.

Facts: Employee brought action against employer for permitting disclosure of employee’s Human Immuno‑deficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) status, alleging violations of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), due process clause, and Ohio statute and invasion of privacy claim. An employment disability form was sent by mistake through the employer’s mail system, through inner office mail, and then finally to Yoder’s home where it was read by his mother. She learned from the Physician’s Statement that he had AIDS. She had known her son was HIV-positive but did not know he had AIDS. Yoder brought a complaint against the firm for permitting the unauthorized disclosure of his medical condition. Count four alleged state common law claim for invasion of privacy. Both sides moved for summary judgment.

Decision: The District Court held that the employer did not disclose employee’s HIV and AIDS status to public and did not intentionally disclose information as required to impose liability for invasion of privacy. Under the five factors of the publicity tort test, Plaintiff can show neither the first nor the fourth element of this test. As to the first element, Plaintiff can prevail only if he shows that the matter has been communicated to “the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge.” It is not enough to show merely that the matter was communicated by the defendant to a third person. The record evidence indicates that Plaintiff’s HIV/AIDS status was actually communicated to only one unauthorized person. As to the fourth element, Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant, or its authorized agents, made the disclosure intentionally, even as to Plaintiff’s mother.