On September 10, 2007, high school cheerleader coach Tommie Hill allegedly coerced Miranda Jackson, one of her cheerleaders, to hand over her Facebook log-in information. That information was later provided to “fellow Pearl High School teacher, dance and cheer sponsor Tiffany Durr, cheer trainer Corey Byrd, Principal Ray Morgigno, Superintendant John Ladner, and other unknown individuals.” The student’s information allegedly led to her being “punished and humiliated.” Jackson was then barred from cheer practices and other school sponsored events. Among other things, the complaint alleges a violation of Jackson’s Right to Privacy, Right of Free Association, Right to Free Speech, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Defamation of Character. As of July 28, 2009 a court date has not been set.
Although the complaint does not allege the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, this would raise interesting legal issues.
1. Given the authoritative relationship between school administration and students, was Jackson’s handing over of the log-in information voluntary or not? I would think not, but this could be argued either way.
2. Would the intrusion be highly offensive to a reasonable person? Again, arguably yes. If a reasonable person decided to only allow personal information to be available to certain people, she would be offended when one who was not given access to the information used coercion to gain access to that information.
According to Jennifer Van Grove’s article, Jackson’s age (and, presumably the fact that she was in high school) should be considered in weighing the merits of her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
Comments
In response to Anonymous:
In response to Anonymous: Thank you for reading my post and taking the time to comment. You raise some very good points. As you point out, privacy interests are often in conflict with other interests, such as safety. The cause of action of intrusion upon seclusion is a tort. To my understanding then, the garden variety tort defenses would be available to the defendants. If there was impending danger, such as suicide or violence, I believe the defense of necessity would apply. As for finding evidence of drug dealing, I think the answer is less clear. Because the school official (a public actor) would be investigating a crime, the fourth amendment may be applicable. However, I believe that the rights of students are different than the rights of general public (i.e., they have less rights). SCOTUS recently ruled on a similar issue in Safford v. Redding. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf)
Re: Punctilio
I understand and respect your opinion, but if the student's facebook had information about an impending danger - her suicide, violence she was planning, proof of her drug dealing - then the coach, and any other school staff, would have the duty to bring it to light in order to save her and/or the rest of the student body. Of course they should carry out this expose in the most sensitive manner.
Punctilio
I would think that the fact that she was a minor in school and her coach told her to hand it over should negate any voluntary argument completely. There is some serious violation of duty here.
Post new comment