Girl sues school for outing her homosexuality

[Dormin111]

This is an interesting news story and I'm not really sure what to make of it: http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/the-girl-who-fought-her-school-s-anti-gay-actions--and-won--202756408.html

 

Basically, a lesbian in high school was outed to her parents by her softball coach. Her parents then sued the school for invasion of privacy and the school settled out of court for $77 thousand.

 

This case has many legal implications that I am unsure about. What is the "right to privacy"? Do people give up their right to privacy when they reveal sensitive information (like when the girl revealed her homosexuality by having a girlfriend)? Does "right to privacy" apply to literally every bit of information, like my favorite color, or just information with potentially emotionally distressing implications? Is "causing emotional distress" a form of coercion which should be punished by legal action in some instances? Which instances?

 

 

 

EDIT - Upon further thought, I find myself turning against the plaintiff. Why does the "right to privacy" specifically refer to homosexuality but probably not a lot of other thoughts and actions. What if the girl's coach told her parents that she was really into anime or was a Nazi or some other random fact? Would her "right to privacy" be upheld in those instances?

 

Also, considering that the girl openly had a girlfriend, it seems ludicrous to suggest that no one is able to tell anyone else that they think she is a lesbian, without violating her right to privacy.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Dormin111

[Hairnet]

Its not a secret if someone else knows. I agree it sounds like she had an unreasonable expectations when it came to this.

 

If the allegations in the story are true though the coaches used that information in an extremely inappropriate way. 

[Robert Baratheon]

Privacy is largely contextual and depends on how reasonable the expectation is in light of the surrounding circumstances. It isn't entirely clear from the article, but some of the cases might have been brought on the grounds of intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, or bullying rather than on a straight-up privacy claim.

 

The facts of this case seem pretty stupid, frankly, and I would have been rolling my eyes on that jury all week long. The damages are extremely speculative and stem from something that arguably shouldn't be a source of shame or embarrassment in the first place. Valuable advice to the teenager would be to grow a thicker skin, stop playing the victim, and own her identity. Since she is out dating people of the same sex, it's hard to call that a "secret" anymore.

 

It's important to remember that just because the school settled doesn't mean the claim had any merit. Frivolous discrimination cases settle all the time for no reason other than the defendants don't want the negative publicity, it would cost more in legal fees to go to court, or both. It's notoriously difficult to defend Title VII racial discrimination claims in particular because of the special burden-shifting framework of the statute. Typically, whatever agency or school department is being sued will just give the plaintiff a 5-figure settlement to go away and stop bothering them.

[Nicky]

It's not as simple as "what are our rights". A teacher-student relationship affords a certain level of authority to one side, over the other. Authority must come with both responsibilities and limitations. This is about a school or teacher's obligations and limitations when it comes to their authority over students' lives.

Schools and teachers are given authority over those aspects of a student's life that are related to the safety of the school and their ability to learn the specific curriculum the school is tasked with teaching. In return, they should be required to accept certain responsibilities and limitations, when it comes to their relationship with the students.

Respecting their privacy when it comes to matters unrelated to their job description should obviously be one of them. I'm not saying that a teacher shouldn't be allowed to help a student with some other aspect of their lives, but he shouldn't do so without the consent of the parents, in the case of a child, or of the student, in the case of a young adult.

I fully agree with allowing legal recourse to a young woman who's private life was intruded into by her teacher, without her permission, irrespective of her age. The fact that she is in highschool means she's old enough to be in charge of her own love life.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Nicky

[CrowEpistemologist]

"For Skye, the saga began back in 2009, when two softball coaches cornered her in the high school locker room, according to the court documents. The coaches then allegedly bullied Skye into admitting that she was gay and told her that she couldn’t play in that day’s game unless she came out to her mother."

 

These coaches should be fired. The school should keep getting sued until they fire these criminals if $77k is not enough to convince them.

[Robert Baratheon]

If the coaches truly did use their official capacity to bully and inflict distress on the student, they should be fired and the school should compensate the victim. But note: the violation would have been forcing the information out of the student, not divulging the "secret" that she was gay. If not keeping a secret were the standard, it would open the door to all sorts of silliness in the schools and every student would soon find themselves a "victim" of some sleight or other.

Please keep in mind that very little in these types of complaints tends to be factual, or at least without significant exaggeration by the plaintiff. The very activist and ideology-driven EEOC only pursues around 10% of the claims brought before it, and among the remaining cases, many more are dismissed. Settlements are a cost- and face-saving measure, not an admission of wrongdoing by the defendant.

[Nicky]

If the coaches truly did use their official capacity to bully and inflict distress on the student, they should be fired and the school should compensate the victim. But note: the violation would have been forcing the information out of the student, not divulging the "secret" that she was gay.

The teacher gained all the information he had on her (everything from her name, to her parent's identity, address, phone number, and probably even her sexual orientation) in his official capacity as a teacher. And then he used all that information to interfere in her private life, without her consent.

Would you also be OK with your banker divulging your account information without your permission, as long as he didn't get that information by force? Or your doctor, your medical information? Or your lawyer, your confession?

[Robert Baratheon]

The pertinent question isn't whether I would be "OK" with any given action or another. People say things I don't like all the time but I am not entitled to financial compensation for my hurt feelings. In the case of the banker, there are laws in place and contractual obligations that prevent him from leaking or selling my personal information. Interestingly, if a client were to actually confess to an attorney, the attorney might be required to recuse himself from the case rather than aid in a perjury.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I haven't read the article yet, but in the OP you described a situation in which someone's coach told her parents some humiliating piece of information.

If that violates her right to privacy then, in this context, the "right to privacy" means the right to be protected from the truth.

 

The implications are not pleasant.