Shoun v. Best Formed Plastics, Inc. 28 F. Supp. 3d 786 (N.D. Ind. 2014)

In March 2012, George Shoun fell and injured his shoulder while on the job at Best Formed Plastics and spent several months away from work recovering. Jane Stewart, who processed workers’ compensation claims for the company, prepared an accident report for the incident and notified the company’s insurer. Mr. Shoun says that between March and August 2012, Ms. Stewart monitored his medical treatment for the company and so learned the nature and extent of his injury.

In February 2013, Ms. Stewart posted the following on her Facebook page: “Isn’t [it] amazing how Jimmy experienced a 5 way heart bypass just one month ago and is back to work, especially when you consider George Shoun’s shoulder injury kept him away from work for 11 months and now he is trying to sue us.” Mr. Shoun claims Ms. Stewart’s Facebook page is linked to her business email address and available to the business communities in northeastern Indiana and southern Michigan. The quoted statement remained on Ms. Stewart’s Facebook page for 76 days.

Mr. Shoun asserts that Ms. Stewart’s posting of the statement was a “deliberate disclosure of [his] medical condition to other persons” in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He claims, too, that Ms. Stewart “acted with the intent to expose him to public scorn and ridicule and to blacklist him among prospective employers within her broad network.” Mr. Shoun seeks compensatory and punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, attorney fees, and costs.

Best Formed Plastics moves to dismiss Mr. Shoun’s complaint because, first, the company can’t be liable for violating the ADA’s confidentiality provisions when Mr. Shoun voluntarily disclosed his medical condition to the public and, second, Mr. Shoun hasn’t alleged any tangible injury that resulted from the alleged ADA violation.

Discussion

Section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act provides that any information relating to a medical condition of an employee obtained by an employer during “voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary work histories, which are part of an employee health program available to employees at that work site,” must be “collected and maintained on separate forms and in separate medical files and [be] treated as a confidential medical record.” To state a claim for violation of the ADA’s confidentiality provisions, a plaintiff must allege that his employer obtained his medical information through employment-related medical examinations and inquiries, the information obtained through such means was disclosed by the employer rather than treated as confidential (unless that information falls under one of the exceptions found in 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3)(B)(i), (ii), (iii), none of which are alleged here), and he suffered a tangible injury as a result of the disclosure.

Best Formed Plastics argues that Mr. Shoun’s amended complaint should be dismissed because Mr. Shoun voluntarily and publicly disclosed his medical condition in the complaint he filed in the Elkhart Superior Court before Ms. Stewart’s alleged disclosure of that same information. The company asks the court to take judicial notice of Mr. Shoun’s state court complaint, a request to which Mr. Shoun hasn’t objected. “Taking judicial notice of matters of public record need not convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment” if the facts are “readily ascertainable from the public court record and not subject to reasonable dispute.” Ennenga v. Starns. Mr. Shoun’s complaint meets those requirements. Because the state court complaint “is offered to show what was stated to the court rather [than] for the truth of the matter asserted,” Felty v. Driver Solutions (internal quotation and citation omitted), the court grants the motion to take judicial notice of Mr. Shoun’s Elkhart Superior Court complaint.

Best Formed Plastics notes that Mr. Shoun filed his state court complaint on February 14, 2013, and Ms. Stewart posted her comment on her Facebook page five days after Mr. Shoun’s public disclosure of his medical condition. Thus, the company says, Mr. Shoun voluntarily publicized his medical condition outside the context of an authorized employment-related medical examination or inquiry prior to Ms. Stewart’s Facebook comment, so Ms. Stewart’s alleged disclosure was nothing more than a mere recitation of facts previously disclosed to the public by Mr. Shoun. Best Formed Plastics concludes that based on Mr. Shoun’s voluntary disclosure, the company can’t be liable for violating the ADA’s confidentiality provisions, and Mr. Shoun isn’t entitled to the relief he seeks.

The cases relied on by Best Formed Plastics support the company’s argument that an employee’s voluntary disclosure of medical information outside the context of an authorized employment-related medical examination or inquiry can render the confidentiality requirements of the ADA inapplicable to the employer, but in those cases the plaintiff-employees volunteered their medical information to their employer or a co-employee.

Neither side has alleged or argued that Mr. Shoun voluntarily disclosed his medical information to Ms. Stewart or anyone else at Best Formed Plastics; instead, Mr. Shoun alleges that Ms. Stewart acquired information about his medical condition through an employment-related medical inquiry by the company and then wrongfully disclosed that information. Whether Ms. Stewart gained knowledge of Mr. Shoun’s medical condition solely within the context of his employment-related medical examination is a question of fact not appropriate for resolution in a motion to dismiss. Mr. Shoun has set forth facts sufficient to allege a violation of the confidentiality provisions of the ADA and the motion of Best Formed Plastics to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be denied.

Best Formed Plastics also moves to dismiss the amended complaint based on its claim that Mr. Shoun hasn’t alleged any tangible injury. The court can’t agree. Mr. Shoun has alleged that as a result of Ms. Stewart’s actions, “prospective employers refused to hire him,” and he suffered emotional injury, both of which have been recognized as tangible injuries under the ADA. Dismissal on this basis is inappropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the renewed motion to take judicial notice and DENIES the motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

SO ORDERED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course Project

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

Chapter Selected by the Group: Chapter 14 | Case 2

Citation: Shoun v. Best Formed Plastics, Inc. 28 F. Supp. 3d 786 (N.D. Ind. 2014)

Student:

Identify Plaintiff and the Defendant:

Plaintiff and Defendant Facts

                        Facts For Plaintiff and Defendant: Summarize only those facts which apply to both the Plaintiff and Defendant which were critical to the outcome of the case.

 

Issue

What was the primary/central question or questions on which the case is based and which the Court based its Decision.

 

Explain the applicable law(s).

                        The law should come from the same chapter as the case. Be sure to use citations from the textbook including page numbers.

Holding/ Reasoning

[State the Holding of the Court and explain the reasoning. Why did the Court decide the way it did? What was the logic used?  Give examples and explain.  (Do NOT cut and paste.)

Conclusion

This should summarize the key aspects of the decision.  State why you agree or disagree with the Court’s Decision.

 

 

Reference

Only use :

the web-based JUSTICA.com or FindLaw.com