Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/122168780/Memorandum-re-FIPA-v-MTCA
Timestamp: 2016-10-24 08:57:42
Document Index: 167082038

Matched Legal Cases: ['§3', '§2', '§10', '§ 1', '§3', '§10', '§10', '§10', 'art6']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicMEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: [Redacted] Mara Stewart November 5, 2012SUBJ: Invasion of privacy as cause of action against a public employer QUESTION Can a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seek damages from a public employer in an invasion of privacy cause of action under FIPA or the Mass. Tort Claims Act? BRIEF ANSWER No. Under the Massachusetts Torts Claims Act, upheld in numerous court cases, an invasion of privacy is considered an intentional tort, and is therefore exempted as a cause of action against a public employer. FACTS The local Housing Authority violated a client’s privacy when her personal information, an application packet containing demographic and disability information, was disclosed to an unauthorized party by mail. DISCUSSION The Fair Information Practices Act (FIPA), M.G.L. c. 66A, was enacted in 1975. It defines what entities in the Commonwealth are “holders” of personal data, and provides agencies and authorities with the power to promulgate regulations regarding the collection, use, and dissemination of personal data. However, FIPA itself does not specifically provide for civil remedies of violations of the statute. M.G.L. c. 214 §3B provides for damages under FIPA. In 1978 the General Court passed the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, M.G.L. c. 258. Prior to its passage, the Commonwealth and
municipalities enjoyed sovereign immunity from suit. With passage of the MTCA, public employers became liable for negligent or wrongful acts of an employee while the employee was engaged in activities within the scope of his or her duties (M.G.L. c.258 §2). However, §10 of the MTCA exempts public employers from liability from intentional torts, including invasion of privacy claims. The MTCA and FIPA intersected in Spring v. Holyoke Geriatric Authority1. In Spring, the plaintiff’s deceased husband’s privacy was breached when staff of a municipally-run nursing home published information about his medical case in a local newspaper without his or his family’s permission. The plaintiff claimed invasion of privacy under G.L. c.66A. The Authority filed a motion for summary judgment on the two counts of invasion of privacy, which the Court awarded. The Court awarded summary judgment to the Authority on the counts of invasion of privacy for two reasons. First, the Geriatric Authority, being a citylevel entity, was not governed under FIPA, which governs only statelevel Authorities, and local Housing Authorities. Second, the Court disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that the Authority, as a public employer under G.L. c. 258, § 1, was subject to her invasion of privacy claims. Prior to Spring, there was no case law in this Commonwealth holding municipalities liable for the intentional torts of their employees. The MTCA exempted public employers from liability from intentional torts, but left open the question of individual employees being liable for them. The Court concluded that, consistent with the principles of sovereign immunity pre-dating the MTCA, public employers retained their immunity from suits arising from intentional torts.2 FIPA and the MTCA once more intersected in Tivnan vs. Registrar of Motor Vehicles3. An imposter duped the Registry of Motor Vehicles into issuing him a duplicate driver license with Andrew Tivnan’s name and personal data. Tivnan sued the Registrar in his official capacity, seeking damages for emotional distress under FIPA due to the invasion of privacy. The Registry answered that the MTCA had superseded G.L. c. 214 §3B, the statute permitting such a claim under FIPA. Additionally, because of the restrictions in §10 of the MTCA, the statute provides only a remedy for a negligence claim; invasion of privacy, an intentional tort, is not provided for. The trial court agreed, and granted summary judgment in favor of the Registry. The Appeals court, citing Spring, affirmed the trial court’s decision.4 The end result of Tivnan is that an invasion of privacy claim against a public employer, being
475 N.E.2d 727 Mass. 1985 Id., at 734 734 N.E.2d 1182, Mass. App. Ct. 2000.
considered an intentional tort, is moot. The decisions in Spring and Tivnan were upheld in Amato v. District Attorney for Cape and Islands District5. Keith Amato brought action against the District Attorney for the Cape and Islands District on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, seeking damages for invasion of privacy after DNA information was mishandled in a criminal matter. The trial judge had previously determined that §10(c) of the MTCA prevented him from seeking damages for his FIPA and invasion of privacy claims6. Consequently, Amato withdrew his claim for damages and did not pursue the matter on appeal. Citing Spring and Tivnan, the Appeals court in Amato noted the trial court’s ruling and did not reverse or remand it7. CONCLUSION The MTCA §10(c) abolishes claims for damages against public employers for intentional torts, which include invasion of privacy claims under FIPA. Only a claim of negligence may prevail for damages. Remedies for invasion of privacy claims against a public employer are limited to equitable relief only.
Id., at 1186 952 N.E.2d 400, Mass. App. Ct. 2011 Id., at 403 Id.
AboutBrowse booksSite directoryAbout ScribdMeet the teamOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsPartnersPublishersDevelopers / APILegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSupportHelpFAQAccessibilityPressPurchase helpAdChoicesMembershipsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsCopyright © 2016 Scribd Inc. .Terms of service.Accessibility.Privacy.Mobile Site.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaMemorandum re: FIPA v. MTCA by Mara Stewart6 viewsEmbedRelated interestsDamages, Privacy, Tort, Expectation Of PrivacyDownloadDescriptionMemorandum detailing whether the local Housing Authority could be sued for invasion of privacy under the Fair Information Practices Act, or whether the Housing Authority was exempt from intentional...Memorandum detailing whether the local Housing Authority could be sued for invasion of privacy under the Fair Information Practices Act, or whether the Housing Authority was exempt from intentional tort liability under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
Documents similar to Memorandum re: FIPA v. MTCACitation- Journal of High Technology Lawby Byron DubowIntrusion Upon Seclusion for Health Recordsby Omar Ha-RedeyeProsser Privacyby Raul Marie TorresBooks similar to Memorandum re: FIPA v. MTCAA Modern View of the Law of Torts: The Commonwealth and International Library: Pergamon Modern Legal Outlines Divisionby J.S. ColyerFire & Smoke: Government, Lawsuits, and the Rule of Lawby Michael I. KraussGetting Incentives Right: Improving Torts, Contracts, and Restitutionby Robert D. CooterBooks about Damages恨海by Jianren WuTabbyby Winston K. MarksThe Unforseen Returnby Jean François Regnard