Janis E. Roberts v. CareFlite

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-12-00105-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 4, 2012; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Janis E. Roberts sued her former employer, CareFlite, for unlawful termination and invasion of privacy after her employment was terminated. CareFlite responded with a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted without specifying reasons. Roberts appeals the ruling, specifically challenging the summary judgment on her invasion of privacy claim related to intrusion on seclusion. 

Roberts, employed as a paramedic, had Facebook interactions with colleagues, including a post expressing frustration about a patient that raised concerns about public perception and professional conduct. Sheila Calvert, CareFlite's compliance officer, informed Roberts through Facebook that her post could negatively impact her career and possibly lead to disciplinary action concerning her EMS license. Despite Calvert's warnings about the potential consequences of her public comments, Roberts defended her actions, asserting that she had not acted unprofessionally.

The trial court's decision to grant summary judgment for CareFlite was upheld on appeal, with the court concluding that the trial court did not err in its ruling.

Sumien commented on a Facebook post, expressing frustration with police responses, which prompted Roberts to email a colleague about the exchange. Haynes, Calvert’s sister, informed CareFlite CEO James Swartz about Roberts's post suggesting violence toward a patient and Sumien's comment. Subsequently, CareFlite terminated Roberts, citing her post about wanting to slap a patient and deeming her response unprofessional. Roberts contended her termination was retaliatory for reporting an unqualified employee who attempted to start an IV and for refusing to cover it up. She claimed CareFlite violated her privacy rights by using her private Facebook messages as grounds for her dismissal, asserting two torts: public disclosure of private facts and intrusion upon seclusion. CareFlite responded with a no-evidence motion, arguing Roberts failed to demonstrate the necessary elements for her claims and contending the subject matter was not private. The trial court granted summary judgment for CareFlite, leading Roberts to appeal. The appeal examines whether CareFlite met the summary judgment burden by showing no genuine issues of material fact exist and whether Roberts can raise a factual dispute to counter CareFlite's claims.

The motion for summary judgment must clearly outline the lack of evidence for each element of the claim. The trial court is required to grant the motion unless the nonmovant provides evidence that creates a genuine factual dispute. If the nonmovant presents more than a mere scintilla of evidence indicating a genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment is inappropriate. The review of summary judgment is conducted de novo, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and crediting reasonable inferences that support their position.

In this case, Roberts appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on her invasion of privacy claim, specifically for intrusion upon seclusion. According to Texas law, a legal injury arises from an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Supreme Court of Texas recognizes two torts pertinent to Roberts’s claim: intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of embarrassing facts. Intrusion upon seclusion requires (1) an intentional intrusion into another’s private affairs that (2) is highly offensive to a reasonable person.

CareFlite’s no-evidence motion contended that no evidence supported either element of Roberts’s claim. However, Roberts failed to direct the court to any summary judgment evidence that raised a factual issue regarding these elements, instead presenting arguments unrelated to the evidence necessary to support her claim. She referenced a recent case concerning employee privacy rights that involved a balancing test between privacy rights and public interest, but this was not applicable to her case since there was no claim that CareFlite disclosed her personal information. The tort of intrusion upon seclusion does not hinge on whether private information was disclosed, making the balancing test irrelevant in determining whether CareFlite improperly intruded upon Roberts’s seclusion.

Roberts argued that the National Labor Relations Board prohibits employers from terminating employees for discussing workplace conditions on Facebook. She appealed the summary judgment regarding her intrusion upon seclusion claim but did not contest the wrongful termination claim. The court noted that the relevance of whether CareFlite could terminate Roberts for her Facebook comments was not pertinent to her intrusion upon seclusion claim. The focus was on whether CareFlite intentionally intruded upon her privacy and if such intrusion was highly offensive to a reasonable person. Roberts failed to provide evidence or legal support for her claim of intrusion, despite submitting over 350 pages of evidence. She did not demonstrate how CareFlite’s review of her communications constituted an intrusion. The arguments presented by Roberts were deemed irrelevant, and she did not raise any fact issues regarding her claim. Consequently, the court upheld the trial court’s no-evidence summary judgment for CareFlite, affirming the judgment without needing to address the traditional summary judgment motion. Roberts was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Sumien’s employment was terminated due to comments he made on Facebook. He subsequently sued CareFlite and appealed the trial court’s ruling, which favored CareFlite. The Second District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision. The legal context includes references to Texas case law regarding privacy torts, specifically noting that Texas recognizes the torts of intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of embarrassing private facts but does not recognize false light. The court emphasized that when a party seeks both traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, the no-evidence standard is typically applied first. The summary also discusses the necessity for briefs to include proper citations to the record and clarifies that liability for intrusion upon seclusion does not depend on publication, focusing instead on unauthorized access to a person's private domain.

The trial court is required to grant a no-evidence motion unless the non-movant provides summary judgment evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact, emphasizing that the non-movant must identify evidence that challenges specific elements without needing to present all proof. Roberts references a recent Supreme Court decision interpreting employee privacy rights broadly, highlighting that the court prioritized the privacy of state employees over public interest. She argues that CareFlite employees' rights to privately discuss patient restraint issues outweigh public concerns. However, the cited case dealt with the disclosure of personal information under the Texas Public Information Act, and the balancing test applied there is not relevant here, as there are no allegations of CareFlite disclosing Roberts’s personal information. 

Roberts contends that the National Labor Relations Board protects employees from termination for discussing working conditions on Facebook, but this argument is unrelated to her appeal regarding the intrusion upon seclusion claim. Her assertions that CareFlite management was targeting her and that the claim of public access to her emails was a fabricated management story do not pertain to whether she provided sufficient evidence for her claim. The critical issue remains whether CareFlite intentionally intruded upon Roberts’s solitude or private affairs and whether such an intrusion would be deemed highly offensive by a reasonable person.

Roberts failed to present evidence supporting her claim that CareFlite intruded upon her seclusion, despite submitting over 350 pages of summary judgment evidence. The court noted that it is not obligated to analyze the records to find relevant evidence for her claim. Roberts did not articulate how CareFlite's review of her messages or public comments constituted an intrusion, nor did she reference any legal precedents to back her argument. Her response in the trial court mirrored the irrelevant arguments made on appeal, lacking specific evidence to raise a factual issue regarding the elements of intrusion upon seclusion. Consequently, the court overruled her appeal, affirmed the trial court's judgment, and ordered Roberts to pay all costs associated with the appeal.

When a party seeks both traditional and no-evidence summary judgments, the review process typically begins with the no-evidence standard. Relevant cases establish that liability for intrusion upon seclusion does not depend on publication; rather, it focuses on unauthorized prying into someone's private affairs. The torts of intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of embarrassing private facts are recognized, while false light is not. The Texas Government Code outlines specific procedural requirements for summary judgment motions, which require the trial court to grant a no-evidence motion unless the opposing party presents evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. Additionally, parties are not obligated to comb through extensive records without guidance to identify material fact issues. The Restatement (Second) of Torts clarifies that liability for intrusion arises only from intruding into a private space or seclusion, not from observing individuals in public view.