Miller v. Motorola, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for public disclosure of private facts where her employer “disclos[ed] … her mastectomy surgery to [her] co-employees”
• concluding that the defendant did not commit an unauthorized intrusion into the seclusion of the plaintiff by disclosing medical information that the plaintiff had voluntarily provided to the defendant
• holding that an invasion of a right to privacy does not equate to publication
• holding that a plaintiff’s relationship to other employees qualified for the exception
• explaining that general rule for purposes of public-disclosure claim is that “the required communication must be more than that made to a small group; rather, the communication must be made to the public at large”
• outlining the elements of a claim for public disclosure of private facts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).