## Facts

- John Doe, a U.S. Postal Service letter carrier, was hospitalized in 1990; his HIV-positive status was recorded in hospital records after he told paramedics.
- Doe disclosed his HIV status only to a small circle of friends and some co-workers; workplace rumors existed about his sexual orientation and possible HIV status.
- Doe alleged a co-worker’s spouse, a hospital employee, accessed his confidential medical records and shared his HIV status with her husband.
- Doe alleged the husband then relayed the information to postal co-workers, including Cathy Duncan.
- A co-worker testified Duncan asked, “I heard that [Doe] has AIDS. Is it true?” and Duncan also asked another co-worker (who already knew from Doe) to verify the rumor.
- Doe complained to supervisors; Duncan was confronted, transferred, and apologized for spreading the rumor.
- Doe sued Duncan for invasion of privacy based on public disclosure of private facts, seeking damages for embarrassment and emotional distress.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Duncan; the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Indiana should recognize public disclosure of private facts as a distinct invasion-of-privacy tort on these facts.
2. If recognized, whether Duncan’s alleged conduct satisfied the Restatement elements, especially the “publicity” requirement.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Duncan.
- The court declined, on the facts presented, to recognize public disclosure of private facts as a basis for civil liability in Indiana.
- The court also concluded that, even assuming the tort existed, Doe’s evidence did not establish the element of “publicity.”

## Legal Principles

- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D requires: (1) “publicity” given to (2) a private fact, where (3) disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (4) the fact is not of legitimate public concern.
- “Publicity” requires communication to the public at large or to so many persons that the matter is substantially certain to become public knowledge; it is more demanding than “publication” in defamation.
- Limited communications among a small number of co-workers may be insufficient to show “publicity,” and disclosure to a person who already knows the information may not establish dissemination of a “private” fact as to that recipient.
- Courts may hesitate to expand tort liability for truthful disclosures where existing doctrines (e.g., defamation for falsity; intentional infliction of emotional distress for extreme conduct) and constitutional constraints already regulate related harms.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holding that Indiana would not recognize public disclosure of private facts on these facts and, in any event, the plaintiff failed to show the required “publicity” for a disclosure-based privacy claim.


Doe v. Methodist Hosp., 690 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. 1997)