## Facts

- Greg Roth worked for Farner-Bocken-related companies for many years and experienced alcoholism and mental-health problems that affected his employment.
- Farner terminated Roth’s employment after complaints and interpersonal problems; Roth secretly recorded the termination meeting.
- Roth consulted an attorney about a potential age-discrimination claim and left the attorney a package containing the recording and transcript, handwritten notes, and employment-related materials that included sensitive personal information.
- The attorney later mistakenly mailed the package to Farner rather than to Roth.
- Farner personnel opened the package, read its contents, photocopied the materials, and circulated copies internally; the originals were then repackaged and mailed to Roth, obscuring that Farner had reviewed them.
- Roth later sued Farner for age discrimination; during discovery he learned about the package being opened and copied and added an invasion-of-privacy claim.
- At trial, Roth and his wife testified to emotional distress (e.g., anger, betrayal, shock, difficulty sleeping) resulting from the incident.

## Issues

1. Whether opening, reading, photocopying, and internally circulating the mistakenly delivered package supported liability for invasion of privacy under an intrusion-upon-seclusion theory.
2. Whether the $25,000 compensatory damages award for emotional distress was supported by sufficient evidence.
3. Whether the $500,000 punitive damages award was excessive under South Dakota law and federal due process limits governing punitive damages.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the jury’s finding of invasion of privacy based on intentional intrusion into Roth’s private affairs.
- The court affirmed the $25,000 compensatory damages award as supported by the testimony describing emotional harm.
- The court reversed the punitive damages award in part, holding $500,000 was excessive, and remanded for a new punitive-damages determination (or reduction) consistent with constitutional and state-law constraints.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a defendant intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, on another’s private affairs in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- In a privacy-tort case, emotional-distress damages may be proven through lay testimony (including the plaintiff and close witnesses) describing mental anguish and related effects; medical or expert proof is not invariably required.
- Punitive damages require willful, wanton, or malicious conduct and must satisfy due process limits assessed by: (1) reprehensibility, (2) the punitive-to-compensatory ratio, and (3) comparison to sanctions for similar misconduct.
- A 20:1 punitive-to-compensatory ratio is presumptively suspect absent extraordinary circumstances; some punitive damages may be appropriate for intentional and deceptive conduct, but the amount must be proportionate.

## Conclusion

The court treated an employer’s deliberate review and internal circulation of an employee’s mistakenly delivered, highly personal legal materials as actionable intrusion upon seclusion, upheld compensatory damages for resulting emotional distress, and required reduction or redetermination of a 20:1 punitive award as constitutionally excessive.


Roth v. Farner-Bocken Co., 667 N.W.2d 651 (S.D. 2003)