## Facts

- Irene DaPonte worked as an assistant manager and was the senior employee on duty at an Ocean State Job Lot retail store in North Kingstown, Rhode Island.
- Company practice required the senior on-duty employee to accompany the company’s president and CEO, Marc Perlman, on a store “walk-through” for critique and evaluation.
- Shortly before the store opened, Perlman conducted a walk-through and became displeased with aspects of merchandise presentation, including a price tag on a rug.
- Perlman “forcefully” attached a price sticker to DaPonte’s shoulder during the walk-through.
- DaPonte did not consent to the physical contact.
- DaPonte sued Ocean State Job Lot and Perlman, alleging invasion of privacy based on “unreasonable intrusion upon … physical solitude or seclusion” under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-28.1(a)(1).
- The Superior Court dismissed the statutory privacy claim, finding the conduct “highly inappropriate” but not actionable under the statute.
- DaPonte appealed; the Supreme Court decided the case after a show-cause procedure and affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a single instance of nonconsensual physical contact in a workplace—forcefully placing a price sticker on an employee’s shoulder—constitutes an “unreasonable intrusion upon … physical solitude or seclusion” under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-28.1(a)(1).
2. How the statutory phrase “physical solitude or seclusion” limits the scope of the intrusion claim, particularly in a retail workplace setting.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of DaPonte’s claim.
- The Court held that Perlman’s single act of unwanted touching, though offensive and inappropriate, did not amount to an intrusion upon “physical solitude or seclusion” within the meaning of § 9-1-28.1(a)(1).
- The Court concluded the trial justice was not clearly wrong in ruling the statute did not cover the alleged conduct.

## Legal Principles

- R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-28.1(a)(1) provides a cause of action only for “unreasonable intrusion upon one’s physical solitude or seclusion.”
- Statutory interpretation focuses on the plain language as the best indicator of legislative intent.
- The statutory intrusion claim is construed narrowly; offensive conduct is not actionable absent an intrusion into a protected sphere of “solitude or seclusion.”
- Brief, nonconsensual physical contact occurring during ordinary workplace activity in a nonsecluded retail environment does not, without more, satisfy the statutory “solitude or seclusion” requirement.

## Conclusion

The court held that a single, nonconsensual, offensive touching during a routine workplace walk-through did not constitute an actionable statutory invasion of privacy because it did not intrude upon “physical solitude or seclusion” as required by R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-28.1(a)(1).


DaPonte v. Ocean State Job Lot, Inc., 21 A.3d 248 (R.I. 2011)