## Facts

- Brenda Phillips worked for Smalley Maintenance Services, Inc. (SMS) at an industrial plant in Alabama.
- Ray Smalley, SMS’s president and principal owner, repeatedly summoned Phillips to his office, locked the door, and subjected her to explicit questioning about her sexual relations with her husband.
- Smalley linked Phillips’s job security to her “cooperation,” escalated to demands for sexual acts, and on at least one occasion struck her buttocks when she refused.
- Phillips experienced significant emotional distress and left work early due to these encounters; she was later prevented from returning to work and was treated as laid off.
- In a federal action, Phillips recovered on Title VII and state-law claims; a jury found SMS and Smalley liable for invasion of privacy by wrongful intrusion and awarded compensatory damages tied to emotional and medical harms, including chronic anxiety.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit certified questions to the Alabama Supreme Court concerning Alabama law governing intrusion upon seclusion and damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Alabama recognizes invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion consistent with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B.
2. Whether liability for intrusion upon seclusion requires (a) actual acquisition of private information, (b) publication to third parties, or (c) surreptitious conduct.
3. Whether intrusion upon seclusion can be based on invasion of “psychological” privacy rather than entry into a physically secluded place.
4. Whether the described workplace conduct supports liability for wrongful intrusion into private activities causing shame or mental suffering to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
5. Whether damages may include medical and psychological conditions (including chronic anxiety) causally connected to the intrusion.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court answered the certified questions by recognizing intrusion upon seclusion as stated in Restatement § 652B.
- The Court held that actual acquisition of private information is not required; the intrusion itself may be actionable.
- The Court held that publication or communication to third parties is not an element of intrusion upon seclusion.
- The Court held that the tort does not require the intrusion to be surreptitious.
- The Court held that invasion of psychological solitude can suffice; physical entry into a secluded place is not essential.
- Applying these rules, the Court concluded the described conduct supported an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim under Alabama law.
- The Court held that compensatory damages may include medical and psychological harms, including chronic anxiety, if causally related to the intrusion.

## Legal Principles

- Alabama recognizes intrusion upon seclusion: intentional intrusion, physical or otherwise, into another’s solitude, seclusion, or private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- The gravamen is the offensive intrusion into privacy, not successful extraction of secrets.
- Publication to third parties is not required for intrusion-upon-seclusion liability.
- Intrusion may occur through coercive, face-to-face prying into intimate matters; secrecy is not a required element.
- Protected privacy interests include psychological and intimate personal autonomy, not only a physically secluded location.
- Compensatory damages may include emotional distress and medically cognizable conditions proximately caused by the wrongful intrusion.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that Alabama’s intrusion-upon-seclusion tort covers coercive, sexually invasive workplace interrogations and demands, without requiring proof of information obtained, publication, or secret surveillance, and it permits recovery for resulting emotional and medical harms such as chronic anxiety.


Phillips v. Smalley Maint. Servs., Inc., 435 So. 2d 705 (Ala. 1983)