Worker who claimed law firm released her private video of sex harassment loses appeal
A woman who secretly made a video of alleged sex harassment at work can’t sue a law firm accused of releasing it to the media, an appeals court ruled last week.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the privacy and emotional distress suit by the Jane Doe plaintiff, who says she gave the video to co-worker Meixing Ren, who gave it to law firm Bernabei & Wachtel, the Legal Profession Blog reports.
The Jane Doe plaintiff had recorded the video while working as a journalist at Phoenix Satellite Television in its Washington, D.C., bureau. The video partly captured a supervisor’s request to hug and lean against Jane Doe, his aggressive movement toward her, and his inappropriate touch, she said in her complaint. The video shows the shoes and knees of a person, some movement, and “portions of two persons’ clothing in close proximity,” according to the court. Jane Doe and the supervisor spoke in Chinese during the incident.
Jane Doe filed a complaint against Phoenix Satellite Television with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and settled with the employer. Ren and other co-workers claimed in a lawsuit filed by Bernabei & Wachtel that Phoenix Satellite Television retaliated against them for helping Jane Doe.
Jane Doe accused lawyer Lynne Bernabei of using Doe’s full name on the lawyer’s microblog and of granting a website interview that also used Doe’s name. Doe also accused the lawyer of giving the video to local TV stations, and posting it on YouTube.
The appeals court said in a June 25 opinion (PDF) that all of Jane Doe’s tort claims must fail. Specifically the court ruled:
• Doe’s claim for public disclosure of private facts failed to allege the publicity about her private life “would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and … not of legitimate concern to the public.”
• Doe can’t sue for false light publicity because no false impression could be relayed by the video.
• Doe’s claim for misappropriation of likeness claim fails because her name was used for legitimate purposes.
• Doe can’t claim negligent infliction of emotional distress because the law firm had no relationship with or obligation toward Doe in the circumstances of the case. Nor can she claim intentional infliction of emotional distress because there was no “extreme or outrageous conduct.”
Related article:
ABAJournal.com: “Law firm faces copyright claim after press obtains secret video made by a client’s co-worker”
