S.C. Workers’ Compensation Law Doesn’t Bar Invasion of Privacy Claim

A South Carolina workers’ compensation exclusivity statute did not bar an employee from filing claims for invasion of privacy and false imprisonment in a psychiatric hospital, according to a recent U.S. District Court ruling.

According to the case background, Jackie Frasier, a 14-year employee of Verizon Wireless, revealed personal emotional problems to one of her superiors on May 22, 2007.

As a result of Frasier’s conversation with Iris Wright-Johnson, Frasier said Wright had her committed to a psychiatric hospital, where Frasier says she was falsely imprisoned for more than a week.

Frasier said the matter was exacerbated during her confinement when other Verizon employees who were also hospitalized at the same facility recognized her, causing “great humiliation and embarrassment.”

Finally, according to Frasier, Verizon Wireless fired her on June 7, 2007, based “on the false ground of ‘self admission of being under the influences of illegal substances while at work.'”

Frasier said Verizon violated the terms of its code of conduct, prompting her to levy claims against the employer for breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and defamation.

No State Ruling

While the South Carolina Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue regarding claims of invasion of privacy and false imprisonment under the state’s workers’ compensation statute, in this federal court decision U.S. District Judge Henry M. Herlong Jr. noted that other jurisdictions have included these claims among those harms which don’t qualify as compensable injuries under a state’s workers’ compensation act. Therefore, Judge Herlong wrote in the ruling, the court ruled that Frasier’s invasion of privacy and false imprisonment claims are not barred by the exclusivity provision of the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act.

Frasier’s claims for defamation, breach of contract and breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act were not supported by the court.