Definition of Invasion of Privacy in Workplace Affair

Outrageous Conduct and Invasion of Privacy

In the workplace, the term “outrageous conduct” typically refers to any behavior that is beyond the pale of what is considered acceptable. This can include everything from sexual harassment and discrimination to threats and physical violence. Invasion of privacy, on the other hand, generally refers to any unauthorized intrusion into another person\'s private life. This can include anything from eavesdropping and snooping to using hidden cameras or taking photos without consent. While both types of misconduct can have a serious impact on the victim, invasion of privacy is often considered to be more egregious since it infringing on an individual\'s right to privacy. With respect to the case, Judge Dailey notes in Pearson v. Kancilla (2003), “the elements of outrageous conduct are: (1) the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) recklessly or with the intent of causing the plaintiff severe emotional distress, and (3) causing the plaintiff severe emotional distress” (p. 1). Invasion of privacy, according to Dailey in the same case and in accordance with Colorado state law, is defined as “(1) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another (\"seclusion\"); (2) unreasonable publicity given to another\'s private life (\"disclosure\"); and (3) appropriation of another\'s name or likeness (\"appropriation\")” (p. 4).

The charges of the case are that Kancilla (defendant) invaded the privacy of and engaged in outrageous conduct against plaintiffs Pearson and Fahy. Judgment favored the plaintiffs and Kancilla was ordered to make financial restitution. Kancilla sought an appeal, arguing that there was no evidence of outrageous conduct or invasion of privacy. Judge Dailey denied the appeal arguing that evidence for both existed, and in the judgment this is stated clearly, point by point, with reference to other cases to support the judgment and reference to state law on the matter providing a legal framework for the judgment.

From the initial filing date by plaintiffs through all appeals, the case took years, with the opening of the case being in appeal being dated as March 2003, and a later appeal coming in 2006 in which Kancilla sought to use bankruptcy law to protect assets (Case Law, 2006). Eventually the case went all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court in 2008.

Sources used by attorneys for Standards of Care included several court cases, such as Bob Blake Builders, Inc. v. Gramling, supra, 18 P.3d at 866; also Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., Coors Brewing Co. v. Floyd, 978 P.2d 663, 665 (Colo. 1999), and Spencer v. United Mortgage Co., 857 P.2d 1342, 1345 (Colo.App. 1993), as well as Denver Publishing Co. v. Bueno, 54 P.3d 893, 897 (Colo. 2002).

It appears that no criminal charges were filed, and the ruling in the case was that plaintiffs were awarded judgment with defendant ordered to pay damages amounting to Pearson receiving $237,685 in compensatory damages on her chiropractic negligence claim, $100,000 in compensatory and punitive damages on her claim for outrageous conduct, and $200,000 in compensatory and punitive damages on her claim for invasion of privacy. Additionally, Dailey (2003) notes that “the jury awarded Fahy $229,400 in compensatory damages on her chiropractic negligence claim and $100,000 in compensatory and punitive damages on her claim for outrageous conduct” (p. 2).

There is no indication that the physician had any disciplinary measures taken by the state licensing authority against him, as Judge Dailey did not refer to this discipline in the judgment.

Summary

In the case of Pearson v. Kancilla, plaintiffs sued for damages, citing outrageous conduct and invasion of privacy, and won judgment. Kancilla appealed and was denied. Kancilla’s appeal was based on the argument that no outrageous conduct or invasion of privacy occurred. Judge Dailey disagreed, and began by setting forth definitions of torts based on both outrageous conduct and invasion of privacy, which would guide his judgment.

Dailey began by laying out the case, and the evidence admitted in the trial. The purpose of doing so was to show the evidence and then the judge defined the terms by which it would be judged. Next, the judge used precedents set in other cases to show why it was acceptable practice to view the evidence admitted as indicating outrageous conduct and invasion of privacy. Dailey explained clearly and reasonably why Kancilla did do the things that he was accused of doing and therefore had no grounds for appeal based on what he argued in the appeal.