Court Opinion

ID: 9390622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 00:02:28.07817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:35.803489
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10295     Document: 00516729861         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/27/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                                                                           FILED
                                                                       April 27, 2023
                                  No. 22-10295                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                           Clerk

   Joshua Amin,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                      versus

   United Parcel Service, Incorporated, a Delaware
   corporation,

                                                           Defendant—Appellee.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 3:19-CV-2578

   Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:
         Joshua Amin alleges that he was denied a bathroom break by his
   supervisor at a Dallas, Texas warehouse until he was forced to defecate on
   himself at his workstation. Amin sued his employer, UPS, for negligent
   supervision, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional
   distress (IIED). The district court dismissed the first two claims under Fed.
   R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and granted UPS’s motion for summary judgment on the
   third. Amin timely appealed. The district court correctly held that Amin has
   not met the standard for IIED claims. However, it erred in concluding that
Case: 22-10295      Document: 00516729861           Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                     No. 22-10295

   Amin’s negligent supervision claim was preempted by federal law. Based on
   our Erie guess, we also disagree with the district court’s conclusion that the
   alleged facts do not constitute an invasion of privacy.        Therefore, we
   AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN PART.
                                   BACKGROUND
          According to his pleadings, Amin was a package sorter for UPS in a
   Dallas warehouse. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between UPS
   and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union #767 governed
   the terms of his employment. Among other things, the agreement protects
   workers from abusive management practices and provides a grievance
   process in case of violation.
          The alleged incident took place on December 6, 2018. Amin left his
   workstation to use the restroom. A part-time supervisor had approved the
   break. On the way, he ran into UPS division manager Sergio Castro. Castro
   asked Amin where he was going; Amin explained that he needed to use the
   restroom. Castro told Amin that he had already had his ten-minute break
   earlier that day and he should get back to work. Amin replied that he was
   sick, was on antibiotics, and needed to use the restroom immediately. Castro
   threatened to “walk [Amin] out right now” if Amin did not return to work.
          Amin eventually complied. Castro followed him to his workstation
   and taunted him, saying, “I guess if you got to go and you use your 10
   minutes, from now on you can use [the restroom] right here, where you are.”
   Shortly after, that is exactly what transpired. Castro then yelled out that if
   Amin’s coworkers needed to use the restroom outside of their ten-minute
   break, they could relieve themselves at their station, “just like Josh.” Castro
   forced Amin to work in soiled pants for another twenty minutes.
          The next day, Castro gave Amin a written warning for Amin’s
   “insubordination,” a notice of UPS’s intent to suspend Amin, and a notice

                                          2
Case: 22-10295       Document: 00516729861          Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                     No. 22-10295

   of UPS’s intent to discharge him. Nothing seems to have come of these
   notices. Amin continued to work at UPS for several months, until he and
   another employee were fired for getting into a physical altercation. However,
   Amin alleges that the other employee was reinstated with full back pay, while
   Amin’s termination was the result of unfair representation on the part of the
   union.
            The same day that Amin received the written notices from Castro,
   Amin filed a grievance with the union asking that the notices be withdrawn
   and that Castro apologize for the December 6 incident. Months after Amin
   was fired, the union and UPS reached a settlement of the grievance on these
   terms: “UPS does not admit any contract violation but assures the Union and
   Mr. Amin that the company will comply with Articles 37 and 66 of the CBA
   in all respects. This matter is resolved without precedent.” Amin was not
   involved in the settlement process and received no compensation as a result
   of the agreement.
            Having failed to secure any relief from the grievance process, Amin
   filed a federal diversity action alleging (1) false imprisonment, (2) invasion of
   privacy, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and
   (4) negligent supervision. The district court dismissed counts (1), (2), and
   (4) under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It held that Amin had failed to state a
   claim on the first two counts, and that his fourth claim was preempted by the
   Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Later, the district court granted
   UPS’s motion for summary judgment on Amin’s IIED claim. Amin appeals
   all but the dismissal of the false imprisonment claim.

                                          3
Case: 22-10295      Document: 00516729861           Page: 4     Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                     No. 22-10295

                                  DISCUSSION
          This court reviews Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and summary judgments
   de novo. GWTP Invs., L.P. v. SES Americom, Inc., 497 F.3d 478, 481 (5th Cir.
   2007). When reviewing dismissals on the pleadings, we assume that the
   plaintiff’s factual allegations are true and must dismiss if they fail to “state a
   claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
   550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007), or fail “on the basis of a
   dispositive issue of law.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326, 109 S. Ct.
   1827, 1832 (1989). The district court granted summary judgment on the IIED
   claim, which must be affirmed where there is “no genuine dispute as to any
   material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
   Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
                 A. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
          The elements of the tort for intentional infliction of distress are:
   “(1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the conduct was
   extreme and outrageous; (3) the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff
   emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress that the plaintiff suffered
   was severe.” City of Midland v. O’Bryant, 18 S.W.3d 209, 216 (Tex. 2000).
   Only the fourth element is disputed here.
          To show severe emotional distress, plaintiffs “must bring forth clear
   and specific evidence that they suffered distress so severe that no reasonable
   person could be expected to endure it.”             Cunningham v. Waymire,
   612 S.W.3d 47, 65 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019). Courts ground
   this inquiry in factors such as the “intensity and duration of the distress,”
   Toles v. Toles, 45 S.W.3d 252, 263 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001), as well as
   whether the plaintiff sought treatment, Higginbotham v. Allwaste, Inc.,
   889 S.W.2d 411, 417 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994). “Mere worry,

                                           4
Case: 22-10295        Document: 00516729861              Page: 5       Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                          No. 22-10295

   anxiety, vexation, embarrassment, or anger are not enough” to prevail.
   Cunningham, 612 S.W.3d at 65.
           On appeal, Amin gives two reasons to find that his emotional distress
   was severe. He contends that the humiliating nature of the December 6
   incident itself supports a finding of severe distress, and he argues that the
   testimony offered by his friends and himself establishes the severity of the
   distress.
           Disgusting though it was, the December 6 incident is alone insufficient
   under Texas law to satisfy a finding of severe emotional distress. There must
   be “sufficient proof of severe emotional distress, wholly apart from any
   outrageous conduct on the defendant’s part.” Tidelands Auto. Club v.
   Walters, 699 S.W.2d 939, 944 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1985); Munoz v.
   H & M Wholesale, Inc., 926 F. Supp. 596, 612 (S.D. Tex. 1996). While the
   shocking nature of a defendant’s conduct can be “important evidence” as a
   cause of severe distress, it cannot solely carry the day. Am. Med. Int’l, Inc. v.
   Giurintano, 821 S.W.2d 331, 343 (Tex. App. 1991). The incident itself does
   not do double duty for the impact on the plaintiff.
           Additionally, Amin has not presented independently sufficient
   evidence that his emotional distress is “severe” for the purposes of the IIED
   tort. 1 Two friends characterized him as “depressed” and “withdrawn” after
   the incident. One even advised him to seek professional help. Both say that
   Amin has reduced his interactions with them because of what happened. For

           1
             Amin also argues that the question whether his emotional distress is “severe”
   must be left to a jury under the Seventh Amendment. As with any factual issue subject to
   Rule 56, federal courts can and have found that certain allegations do not constitute severe
   emotional distress as a matter of law. See, e.g., Peavy v. Harman, 37 F. Supp. 2d 495, 523
   (N.D. Tex. 1998), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 221 F.3d 158 (5th Cir.
   2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2191 (2001).

                                                5
Case: 22-10295          Document: 00516729861              Page: 6       Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                           No. 22-10295

   his part, Amin attests that he thinks about the incident every day. He also
   stated that he stays away from crowded places when he is with his son to
   avoid encountering someone who knows about the incident and might
   mention it in front of his son.             But an IIED claim rests not only on
   extraordinary misconduct but also an extraordinarily damaging impact on a
   plaintiff. Thus, testimony that a plaintiff is “withdrawn and no longer
   happy” does not sustain an IIED claim. Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Loa,
   153 S.W.3d 162, 171 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004). Likewise, “feelings of
   anger, depression, and humiliation (even when embarrassed in front of
   children), are insufficient evidence of severe distress.”                     Villasenor v.
   Villasenor, 911 S.W.2d 411, 417 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995). Although
   Amin was advised to seek counseling, he notably never did so. In sum,
   Amin’s proof does not meet the test for the infliction of severe distress under
   Texas law.
           Cases in which Texas courts have found severe emotional distress
   provide a useful counterpoint. Amin does not claim to have suffered severe
   psychosomatic symptoms, 2 suicidal ideation, 3 a marked degradation in
   physical appearance, 4 or post-traumatic stress disorder. 5 In the absence of
   these or similarly extreme facts, the district court correctly concluded that
   Amin’s distress is not “so severe that no reasonable person could be
   expected to endure it.” Cunningham, 612 S.W.3d at 65. Amin’s evidence

           2
             Tidelands, 699 S.W.2d at 945 (“[The plaintiff] became very ill and very
   disoriented” and had to seek medical attention.).
           3
              Am. Med. Int’l, 821 S.W.2d at 342-343 (“[The plaintiff] asks himself everyday if
   it is worth going on living.”).
           4
              Id. at 343 (“[The plaintiff] looked older, grayer and thinner than he had before.”);
   Behringer v. Behringer, 884 S.W.2d 839, 845 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994) (“[The
   plaintiff] was much thinner than he had been.”).
           5
               Haryanto v. Saeed, 860 S.W.2d 913, 922 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993).

                                                 6
Case: 22-10295      Document: 00516729861           Page: 7    Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                     No. 22-10295

   does not create a genuine, triable issue of material fact that could support an
   IIED tort under Texas law.
                              B. LMRA Preemption
          On the other hand, the Labor Management Relations Act does not
   preempt Amin’s state-law based negligent supervision claim. Section 301(a)
   of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C.
   § 185(a), provides:
          Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor
          organization representing employees in an industry affecting
          commerce as defined in this Act, or between any such labor
          organizations, may be brought in any district court of the
          United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without
          respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the
          citizenship of the parties.
   This language “governs claims founded directly on rights created by
   collective-bargaining agreements, and also claims substantially dependent on
   analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,
   482 U.S. 386, 394, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2431 (1987) (internal quotation marks
   omitted). Therefore, state law claims that are “inextricably intertwined”
   with a CBA are preempted by the LMRA. Jones v. Roadway Exp., Inc.,
   931 F.2d 1086, 1089 (5th Cir. 1991).
          To determine whether a plaintiff’s state law claim is “inextricably
   intertwined” with the CBA, id., the Supreme Court has “underscored” that
   § 301 may not be read to cover all cases where “a collective-bargaining
   agreement will be consulted” in the course of litigation. Livadas v. Bradshaw,
   512 U.S. 107, 124, 114 S. Ct. 2068, 2078 (1994). In particular, § 301:
          cannot be read broadly to pre-empt nonnegotiable rights
          conferred on individual employees as a matter of state law . . . it
          is the legal character of a claim, as independent of rights under

                                          7
Case: 22-10295        Document: 00516729861              Page: 8      Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                         No. 22-10295

           the collective-bargaining agreement (and not whether a
           grievance arising from precisely the same set of facts could be
           pursued) that decides whether a state cause of action may go
           forward.
   Id. at 123–24, 2078 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
           UPS contends that the negligent supervision claim requires Amin to
   establish what supervision duties were owed in the first place, and this effort
   necessarily implicates the CBA. 6 We disagree. The state of Texas imposes
   “continuous, non-delegable duties” on employers to “supervise employees’
   activities [and] hire competent co-employees.”                Kroger Co. v. Milanes,
   474 S.W.3d 321, 335 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015). Those duties
   are “independent” of the obligations established by the CBA and
   “nonnegotiable.”         Livadas, 512 U.S. at 123–24, 114 S. Ct. at 2078.
   Regardless of the substance or even existence of a CBA, an employer cannot
   turn a blind eye when its supervisors commit intentional torts against
   employees. And UPS has not attempted to explain how, given the alleged
   facts, the CBA would bear on the state law duties owed here or the existence
   of a breach of those duties. Thus, it is not even clear that the CBA “will be
   consulted” during litigation of the claim. Livadas, 512 U.S. at 124, 114 S. Ct.
   at 2078. State law is certainly not inextricably intertwined with the CBA.
   LMRA preemption is inapplicable.
           The duties imposed by Texas law distinguish this case from others
   where courts have found preemption. For example, the Eleventh Circuit

           6
             UPS cites a district court opinion to support this proposition. Alvarez v. United
   Parcel Serv. Co., 398 F. Supp. 2d 543, 553 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (“Any duty to effectively
   supervise employees, or breach of such duty, is inextricably intertwined with the issue of
   discipline.”). But that case has low persuasive weight, especially because it was decided
   on an unopposed motion for summary judgment. Id. at 548. To the extent that its holding
   conflicts with this opinion, the district court was in error.

                                               8
Case: 22-10295      Document: 00516729861          Page: 9    Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                    No. 22-10295

   held that § 301 completely preempts negligent supervision claims under
   Alabama law because Alabama common law does not impose on employers a
   duty to employees, so the source of any duty for the employer to undertake
   “must be the CBA.” Palmer v. Loc. 8285 United Steel Workers of Am.,
   234 F. App’x 884, 888 (11th Cir. 2007). Similarly, the Supreme Court held
   that § 301 preempted a state-law claim for bad-faith handling of a worker’s
   compensation claim when the duties an employer owed the employee,
   including the duty of good faith, were firmly rooted in the CBA. Allis-
   Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 213–16, 105 S. Ct. 1904, 1912–14
   (1985). In that case, however, the Supreme Court also cautioned “that other
   state-law rights, those that existed independent of the context, would not
   similarly be preempted,” as is the case here. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris,
   512 U.S. 246, 260, 114 S. Ct. 2239, 2247–48. (1994) (discussing Lueck,
   471 U.S. at 211–12, 105 S. Ct. at 1911–12).        Employers in Texas owe
   employees a state law duty to supervise employees. Kroger, 474 S.W.3d at
   335. Because this duty is independent of any duty imposed by the CBA and
   does not require interpretation of the CBA, the source of the duty is not
   grounds for § 301 preemption. See Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 260,
   114 S. Ct. at 2247–48.
          The district court held that § 301 preempted Amin’s negligent
   supervision claim because the CBA provides resolution procedures for
   grievances involving employee-manager relationships, and “any duty to
   effectively supervise employees, or breach of such duty, is inextricably
   intertwined with the issues of discipline.” However, the Supreme Court has
   held that the potential of a CBA-based remedy does not deprive an employee
   of independent state-law remedies. Id. For example, in Lingle v. Norge Div.
   of Magic Chef, Inc., the Supreme Court allowed a state-court action for
   retaliatory discharge to go forward after an employee filed a grievance
   pursuant to a CBA provision that protected employees from being discharged

                                          9
Case: 22-10295     Document: 00516729861           Page: 10   Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                    No. 22-10295

   except for just cause. 486 U.S. at 402, 108 S. Ct. at 1879. The CBA in that
   instance broadly covered all disputes between the employer and employee.
   Id. The Court looked to the elements of the claim, noting that the elements
   were “purely factual questions pertain[ing] to the conduct of the employee
   and the conduct and motivation of the employer.” Id. at 407, 1882. Because
   none of the elements required evaluating the CBA, the Court held that the
   state-law claim was independent for § 301 preemption purposes. Id.
          This case is similar to Lingle in that Amin pursued a grievance
   pursuant to the CBA and the CBA broadly covers all disputes between
   managers and employees. The elements of a negligent supervision claim, as
   discussed above, are purely factual questions and do not require any
   interpretation of the CBA. Like the employee’s claim in Lingle, Amin’s claim
   can be resolved entirely without referencing the CBA, as the duty to
   diligently supervise arises from state law, as opposed to the CBA. The duty
   UPS owed Amin is independent of the discipline procedures set forth in the
   CBA. Whether UPS followed the discipline procedures is not determinative
   of whether UPS breached its state law duty to Amin. And CBA disciplinary
   procedures certainly do not influence whether a breach proximately caused
   Amin’s injury. In conclusion, none of the elements of Amin’s claim require
   interpreting the CBA.
          Nevertheless, the fate of Amin’s negligent supervision claim is tied to
   the cognizability of his invasion of privacy claim. Texas courts have held that
   plaintiffs bringing a negligent supervision claim must “establish not only that
   the employer was negligent in hiring or supervising the employee, but also
   that the employee committed an actionable tort against the plaintiff.” Brown
   v. Swett & Crawford of Tex., Inc., 178 S.W.3d 373, 384 (Tex. App.—Houston
   [1st Dist.] 2005). Because we have rejected Amin’s IIED claim, the only tort
   that could support this element is invasion of privacy. We turn to that claim.

                                         10
Case: 22-10295      Document: 00516729861           Page: 11    Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                     No. 22-10295

                               C. Invasion of Privacy
          Amin’s theory for invasion of privacy is that Castro’s actions were an
   “intrusion upon seclusion or solitude or into one’s private affairs.”
   “Because no Texas court has ruled on this issue . . . we must make an Erie
   guess.” Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 990 F.3d 842,
   848 (5th Cir. 2021); see generally Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64,
   58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). The Second Restatement of Torts—
   which Texas has relied on to establish its common law in this area—seems to
   indicate liability for the conduct at issue. Therefore, we believe that Texas
   courts would find Castro’s conduct actionable.
          There “are two elements to this cause of action: (1) an intentional
   intrusion, physically or otherwise, upon another’s solitude, seclusion, or
   private affairs or concerns, which (2) would be highly offensive to a
   reasonable person.” Valenzuela v. Aquino, 853 S.W.2d 512, 513 (Tex. 1993).
   Amin claims an intrusion into one’s private affairs. The Texas Supreme
   Court in Valenzuela relied on the Second Restatement of Torts, which
   explains this tort as follows:
          The invasion may be by physical intrusion into a place in which
          the plaintiff has secluded himself. . . . It may also be by the use
          of the defendant’s senses, with or without mechanical aids, to
          oversee or overhear the plaintiff’s private affairs, as by looking
          into his upstairs windows with binoculars or tapping his
          telephone wires. It may be by some other form of investigation or
          examination into his private concerns, as by opening his private
          and personal mail, searching his safe or his wallet, examining
          his private bank account, or compelling him by a forged court
          order to permit an inspection of his personal documents. The
          intrusion itself makes the defendant subject to liability, even
          though there is no publication or other use of any kind of the
          photograph or information outlined.
   Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B cmt. b (1977) (emphasis added).

                                          11
Case: 22-10295     Document: 00516729861           Page: 12    Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                    No. 22-10295

          Applying this description to specific facts, Texas courts have held that
   “intrusion upon private affairs” typically requires either a trespass or an
   attempt to discover or perceive private information. See Clayton v. Wisener,
   190 S.W.3d 685, 696 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005) (“The invasion-of-privacy
   tort is typically associated with either a physical invasion of a person’s
   property or eavesdropping on another’s conversation with the aid of
   wiretaps, microphones, or spying.”). UPS asserts that Amin’s claim is not
   actionable because Amin defecated publicly rather than in seclusion, whereas
   it might have been actionable if “Castro watched, recorded or spied upon
   Amin in the privacy of a bathroom.” In other words, the “secluded” location
   of the invasion or the victim’s thinking that his actions or words are
   “secluded” is as critical as the invasion itself. That Castro prevented Amin
   from reaching the seclusion of a bathroom is irrelevant, according to UPS.
          But the tort described in the Restatement stands for more than
   physical or auditory invasions. It encompasses Amin’s humiliation as Castro
   forced him to defecate, a function all civilized humans believe to be
   manifestly private, in public.
          The quoted comment to § 652B makes “the intrusion itself” the basis
   for liability, “even though there is no publication or other use” of the
   “information.” If there is a tortious invasion of one’s private affairs without
   any use of the information so obtained, surely the invasiveness is heightened
   where deliberate public use is made of the information, as alleged here.
   Exposing a private affair to public view, even without trespass or intent to spy
   upon another, is an intrusion into private affairs. Castro’s forcing Amin to
   defecate at his workstation is thus tortious conduct.
          Another portion of the Restatement lends further support to Amin’s
   position. Illustration 7 of Comment C gives the following example of an
   invasion of privacy:

                                         12
Case: 22-10295      Document: 00516729861            Page: 13     Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                      No. 22-10295

          A, a young woman, attends a ‘Fun House,’ a public place of
          amusement where various tricks are played upon visitors.
          While she is there a concealed jet of compressed air blows her
          skirts over her head, and reveals her underwear. B takes a
          photograph of her in that position. B has invaded A’s privacy.
   Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B cmt. c, illust. 7 (1977). The Texas
   Supreme Court in Valenzuela adopted the Restatement without evident
   narrowing of this provision. 853 S.W.2d at 513. The analogy to Amin’s
   situation is straightforward: like A, Amin was in a public place, and like B,
   Castro violated his privacy by taking what should have been a private matter
   and exposing it to public scrutiny.
          The importance of personal privacy to Texas’s legal framework is also
   worth noting.      The Texas Supreme Court has found that Texas’s
   Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. Tex. State Emps. Union v. Tex.
   Dep’t of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 746 S.W.2d 203, 205
   (Tex. 1987). And when an unwanted invasion of privacy occurs, the Supreme
   Court has recognized a common law right of action. Billings v. Atkinson,
   489 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Tex. 1973). “The right of privacy has been defined as
   the right of an individual to be left alone, to live a life of seclusion, to be free
   from unwarranted publicity.” Id. at 859; see also Cain v. Hearst Corp.,
   878 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex. 1994). This court has recognized that right in a
   number of contexts, including situations that involve neither trespass nor
   eavesdropping. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Green Tree Fin. Corp.–Tex.,
   249 F.3d 389, 394 (5th Cir. 2001) (finding that constant and abusive debt-
   collection calls “clearly support a cause of action for invasion of privacy.”).
          Finally, although cases on point are relatively infrequent, two
   decisions prove illuminating. In Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 738, 122 S. Ct.
   2508, 2514 (2002), the Supreme Court denied qualified immunity to prison
   officials who violated clearly established law when they handcuffed a prisoner

                                           13
Case: 22-10295      Document: 00516729861             Page: 14     Date Filed: 04/27/2023

                                       No. 22-10295

   to a hitching post for seven hours, leading to “a deprivation of bathroom
   breaks that created a risk of particular discomfort and humiliation.” Thus,
   the deprivation of bathroom breaks can give rise to constitutional liability
   against government officers, despite the protection of qualified immunity.
   Similarly, a West Virginia district court denied qualified immunity to officers
   who left a woman naked on her floor, refusing to cover her, while eleven men
   searched her home for up to three quarters of an hour. Hutchinson v. W.Va.
   State Police, 731 F. Supp. 2d 521, 544 (S.D. W. Va. 2010). More pertinent,
   the court denied summary judgment on her claimed violation of the right to
   privacy under state law, footed on Restatement (Second) § 652B. Id. at 548-
   49.
           Therefore, we conclude that the invasion of privacy tort covers the
   alleged facts. In recent years, there have been troubling reports of industry
   practices that deny employees adequate bathroom breaks. 7 It is important to
   clarify that such actions, or similar examples of public humiliation by
   exhibition of intimate personal details or actions, are not immune from
   liability.
                                  CONCLUSION
           For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE
   IN PART.

           7
            See Michael Sainato, 14-hour Days and No Bathroom Breaks: Amazon’s Overworked
   Delivery Drivers, GUARDIAN (March 11, 2021), https://www.theguardian.com/technology
   /2021/mar/11/amazon-delivery-drivers-bathroom-breaks-unions; Audrey Conklin, Ex-
   UPS Driver Says Amazon’s Pee-in-Water-Bottles Problem Isn’t Unique, FOX BUSINESS
   (April 1, 2021), https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/ups-driver-pee-watter-bottles-
   amazon.

                                            14