Question

Review Koeppel v. Speirs, 808 N.W.2d 177 (Iowa 2011)

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the Iowa Supreme Court decide?

2. Why does the Court conclude that an intrusion upon seclusion claim does not require evidence that the offending party actually succeeded in viewing or otherwise intruding on the plaintiff? Does this decision amount to, as the defendant argues, authorizing claims for attempted invasion of privacy? Why or why not?

3. This decision focuses on whether an intrusion occurred. On remand, will the plaintiff be able to establish the other elements of her intrusion upon seclusion claim? Why or why not? Would the outcome be the same for the privacy claim being brought by the plaintiff’s coworker Miller? Why or why not?

4. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the legal claims in this case, what should this smaller employer have done differently?

Answer 1

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the Iowa Supreme Court decide?

The legal issues in this case were whether surveillance equipment secretly installed in a bathroom can support a claim for invasion of privacy when the equipment could not be operated, and whether proof of actual rather than attempted intrusion was required to survive a motion for summary judgment. The Iowa Supreme Court the intrusion of the equipment was sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

2. Why does the Court conclude that an intrusion upon seclusion claim does not require evidence that the offending party actually succeeded in viewing or otherwise intruding on the plaintiff? Does this decision amount to, as the defendant argues, authorizing claims for attempted invasion of privacy? Why or why not?

Following the case law, and particularly the seminal case of Hamberger v. Eastman, the court ruled that at the summary judgment stage, an intrusion occurs when the defendant performs an act that has the potential to impair a person’s peace of mind and comfort associated with the expectation of privacy. The court noted that the rule that the mere placement of equipment can constitute an intrusion continues to be followed. This does not equate to “attempted” invasion of privacy. The injury to one’s peace of mind is done even if the equipment doesn’t work. The court found this line of cases to be more consistent with the spirit and purpose of the protection of privacy.

3. This decision focuses on whether an intrusion occurred. On remand, will the plaintiff be able to establish the other elements of her intrusion upon seclusion claim? Why or why not? Would the outcome be the same for the privacy claim being brought by the plaintiff’s coworker Miller? Why or why not?

It will be difficult. The court also made clear that operational equipment is a requirement of proof in intrusion upon seclusion claims. It is not necessary that Koeppel prove that images were made and transmitted, but it must be shown that they could have been. The claim by Miller has the additional component that the employer suspected she was doing something detrimental, possibly drugs, in the office, which might give him a reason justifying his investigation.

4. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the legal claims in this case, what should this smaller employer have done differently?

This small employer should not have installed a camera in the bathroom for any reason. He could have confronted Miller with his suspicions, or discussed with her how she was doing, or whether she needed help. If she was using drugs, merely asking the question would put her on notice that her employer knew, which might alter her behavior.

I hope I have addressed each part of the question you’ve asked. Please leave a like if you find this answer helpful, it really helps me a lot and motivates me in providing better answers in future. If you have any doubts, please let me know before leaving a dislike I would surely assist you. Thanks in advance for liking this answer.