Roth v. Farner-Bocken Co.
United States District Court for the District of South Dakota
667 N.W.2d 651 (2003)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Farner-Bocken Co. (Farner) (defendant) fired Greg Roth (plaintiff), a recovering alcoholic who had physical and mental health issues. Roth consulted with a lawyer about suing Farner for age discrimination. The lawyer declined Roth’s case, then mistakenly mailed a package of Roth’s sensitive documents to Farner instead of to Roth. A Farner employee opened the package, read and photocopied the documents, and gave the photocopies to Roth’s former boss. The employee then repackaged the documents with the lawyer’s return address and mailed it to Roth. Roth later hired a different lawyer and sued Farner for age discrimination. During discovery, Roth learned that Farner had opened the package, prompting him to add a claim for invasion of privacy to his lawsuit. At trial, Roth testified that the invasion had made him feel angry, betrayed, and devastated and that he had sought help with his feelings from his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor and friends. Roth’s wife testified that Farner’s actions had made Roth feel shocked, hurt, and deceived and had caused him to have trouble sleeping. The jury found Farner liable for invading Roth’s privacy and awarded Roth $25,000 in compensatory damages. Farner appealed, arguing that the damages award was excessive, arbitrary, and unsupported by the evidence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Caldwell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
