Forwarding Confidential Information to Personal Email Account to Aid Co-worker's ADEA Suit is Not Protected Activity: Sixth Circuit | Practical Law

Forwarding Confidential Information to Personal Email Account to Aid Co-worker's ADEA Suit is Not Protected Activity: Sixth Circuit | Practical Law

In Aldrich v. Rural Health Services Consortium, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer in an age discrimination and retaliation case. The court held that an employee forwarding emails containing confidential patient information to her personal email account, to aid a co-worker's discrimination claim, is not protected activity under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) or the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA).

Forwarding Confidential Information to Personal Email Account to Aid Co-worker's ADEA Suit is Not Protected Activity: Sixth Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 22 Aug 2014 • USA (National/Federal)
In Aldrich v. Rural Health Services Consortium, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer in an age discrimination and retaliation case. The court held that an employee forwarding emails containing confidential patient information to her personal email account, to aid a co-worker's discrimination claim, is not protected activity under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) or the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA).
On August 13, 2014, in Aldrich v. Rural Health Services Consortium, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment decision in favor of the employer in an age discrimination and retaliation case. The court held that an employee forwarding emails containing confidential patient information to her personal email account, to aid a co-worker's discrimination claim, is not protected activity under the ADEA, the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) or the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA). (14-5074, (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2014).)

Background

Sarah Aldrich was employed by Rural Health Services, working with the company's CFO, Benny Brewster, and CEO, Linda Buck. Brewster was fired in 2011 and sued the company for age discrimination. Buck began emailing Aldrich and her colleagues, telling them to delete certain emails. Aldrich began forwarding all emails with Buck to her own personal Yahoo email account because:
  • Aldrich became concerned for her own job based on a conflict with Buck about a consultant report.
  • Aldrich believed that Buck was destroying evidence relevant to Brewster's lawsuit.
Many of the emails contained confidential patient information. Rural Health Services told Aldrich to delete all the emails she had forwarded to her Yahoo account. She refused to do so until she was suspended and eventually fired.
Aldrich sued Rural Health Services by claiming retaliation in violation of the:
  • ADEA.
  • THRA.
  • TPPA.
  • Common law.
Aldrich argued that she was fired for refusing to destroy evidence related to Brewster's age discrimination suit.
The district court granted summary judgment to Rural Health Services. Aldrich appealed.

Outcome

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Rural Health Services. The Sixth Circuit found that:
  • An employee can engage in protected activity under the ADEA and THRA retaliation provisions if she has:
    • participated in an investigation proceeding or litigation under these laws; or
    • opposed any practice made unlawful by these laws.
  • A reasonable jury could not find that Aldrich was engaged in protected activity under the ADEA or the THRA.
  • Aldrich asserts that she was participating in the Brewster lawsuit when she forwarded emails to her personal account because some of the emails were within the scope of Brewster's discovery requests.
  • Aldrich was not covered by the participation clause because she was not:
    • directly involved in Brewster's litigation;
    • responding to a discovery request when she forwarded the emails to her personal account; or
    • fired for disclosing emails in response to a subpoena.
  • Aldrich contends that she was opposing unlawful activity under the ADEA when she refused to delete emails from her Yahoo account.
  • An employee's use of confidential documents must be reasonable under the circumstances to qualify as protected activity under the opposition clause (Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 714, 725 (6th Cir. 2008)).
  • An employer's need to protect confidential information must be balanced against the employee's need to be protected from retaliation.
  • Aldrich did not act reasonably under the circumstances, sending documents to herself which were often:
    • confidential; or
    • unrelated to Brewster's ADEA claim.
  • Rural Health Services's confidentiality policy warned that misuse of documents could result in termination.
In holding that summary judgment was proper on Aldrich's TPPA claim, the Sixth Circuit found that:
  • The TPPA contains a cause of action for employees who are fired for refusing to participate in illegal activities.
  • Aldrich claimed she refused to participate in illegal activities by refusing to delete her emails.
  • Neither the EEOC regulations nor the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure have a rule requiring an employee to maintain confidential documents in their personal email accounts.
In holding that summary judgment was proper on Aldrich's Tennessee common law claim, the Sixth Circuit found that:
  • Aldrich failed to show that Rural Health Services fired her for:
    • attempting to exercise a statutory or constitutional right; or
    • a reason which violates public policy.

Practical Implications

In this decision, the Sixth Circuit limited what is protected under the ADEA's retaliation law. It opted to not extend protection under the participation or opposition clauses to include the scenario where an employee was not directly involved in a suit in which she tried to claim retaliation, and the employee participated in an activity that violated company policy. This decision also allows an employer to protect confidential information from unnecessary exposure based on an employee's unreasonable use of confidential documents.