## Facts

- Daniel Hougum, an ordained minister, worked as a chaplain for Valley Memorial Homes (VMH).
- In a Sears public men’s restroom, Hougum used a closed stall with metal partitions; an occupant’s feet and shins were visible from the common area.
- A 1.5-inch hole existed in a partition between stalls; Sears had previously covered it with a metal plate, but it had been removed by unknown persons.
- Shane Moran, a Sears loss-prevention officer, entered an adjacent stall and, while reaching for toilet paper, noticed movement through the hole and briefly saw Hougum masturbating.
- Moran left, called police, and executed a citizen’s arrest form; police arrested Hougum for disorderly conduct.
- Hougum pleaded guilty without counsel; he later withdrew the plea, and the charge was dismissed with prejudice.
- VMH learned of the incident from media reports and terminated Hougum.
- Hougum sued Sears and Moran for intrusion upon seclusion and sued VMH under the North Dakota Human Rights Act for wrongful termination based on lawful off-duty conduct.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants; Hougum appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Moran’s brief observation through a preexisting hole between restroom stalls constituted an actionable intrusion upon seclusion by Moran and Sears.
2. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed that VMH terminated Hougum for lawful off-premises, nonworking-hours activity in violation of the North Dakota Human Rights Act.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for Sears and Moran on intrusion upon seclusion.
- Reversed summary judgment for VMH on the Human Rights Act wrongful-termination claim.
- Remanded for further proceedings on the claim against VMH.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion into a private place, conversation, or matter that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- A person in a closed restroom stall has an expectation of privacy, but a brief, inadvertent observation by another restroom user through an existing defect—without evidence of purposeful surveillance—does not establish a triable intrusion-upon-seclusion claim on these facts.
- The North Dakota Human Rights Act protects employees from discharge for lawful activity off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours, subject to statutory exceptions (including conflicts with essential business-related interests).
- Summary judgment is improper when material factual disputes exist about whether the employee’s conduct was “lawful” for statutory purposes and whether an exception justified the discharge.

## Conclusion

The court held that the restroom observation did not support an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim, but it allowed the wrongful-termination claim to proceed because disputed facts remained about whether VMH fired Hougum for protected lawful off-duty conduct and whether any statutory exception applied.


Hougum v. Valley Mem’l Homes, 574 N.W.2d 812 (N.D. 1998)