Chris Fotiades was a production manager at the Anaheim branch of Hi-Tech, an auto body shop chain. One day while he was in the restroom, store manager Sam Mirable allegedly picked the lock on the door and kicked it open. Then, assistant manager William Hendricks reportedly snapped a Polaroid photo of Fotiades urinating. Afterward, Fotiades was subjected to ribald and humiliating comments from co-workers and supervisors until he finally quit. Now a California Court of Appeal has affirmed an Orange County jury’s invasion-of-privacy verdict for Fotiades, although the court threw out a hefty punitive damages award. We’ll explain what happened.
Teasing Follows Employee After Transfer
In the days after the picture was taken, Mirable and Hendricks teased Fotiades and called him embarrassing nicknames. Other employees who learned about or saw the photo also made insulting comments to Fotiades. Fotiades repeatedly asked Mirable for the picture, but Mirable said he would hold on to it for “safekeeping.”
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
Shortly after this incident, Hi-Tech transferred Fotiades to the Santa Ana store, but problems continued. Mirable and Hendricks mailed the photo to Fotiades’ new manager, Mark Hurwitz, who showed it to several employees—and then Fotiades’ new co-workers started to tease him. At the daily production meeting the next day, Hurwitz told Fotiades in front of co-workers, “Something came in the mail to haunt you.”
A few days later, Fotiades told office administrator Nikki Rast that he was embarrassed and uncomfortable and wanted the comments to stop. Rast then spoke with Hurwitz, who gave the photo to Fotiades, apologized to him and instructed employees not to talk about the matter.
Employee Sues Over Work Environment
Fotiades eventually quit and sued Hi-Tech, Mirable and Hendricks for invading his privacy and inflicting emotional distress. He claimed that the repeated remarks embarrassed and humiliated him. He also contended that restroom photography was an ongoing prank. Hi-Tech asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that Fotiades’ sole remedy was workers’ compensation.
But the case went to a jury, which returned a $1 million verdict against Hi-Tech, Mirable and Hendricks, and ordered Hi-Tech to pay $500,000 in punitive damages. The trial court reduced the award to $350,000 plus $150,000 in punitive damages.
Workers’ Comp Doesn’t Bar Lawsuit
A California Court of Appeal has now upheld the $350,000 award. The court rejected Hi-Tech’s argument that Fotiades was limited to collecting workers’ compensation benefits for his emotional injuries stemming from the picture-taking incident. Workers’ compensation generally is an injured employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer and fellow employees. But this rule doesn’t apply—and an employee can sue for damages—if the misconduct is unrelated to the normal risks of the employment relationship. The court found that, in this case, the supervisors’ conduct was not a normal part of the employment relationship.
No Justification For Punitive Damages
The punitive damages award against Hi-Tech, however, was thrown out. The court explained that a corporation can’t be held liable for punitive damages based on an employee’s acts unless management authorized or ratified the conduct or was personally involved in it.
Here, Mirable and Hurwitz were only low-level supervisors, so their misconduct couldn’t be imputed to the company for purposes of punitive damages. And there was evidence that upper management did not ratify or approve of their behavior. When Fotiades complained, Hi-Tech’s president told Mirable and Hendricks they would lose their jobs if the pranks continued, and he told Mirable to apologize to Fotiades. This, said the court, amounted to a repudiation of the misconduct.
Take Steps To Avoid Lawsuits
This case demonstrates that workplace practical jokes such as this one can spiral into serious and expensive lawsuits that could include claims for invasion of privacy, sexual harassment or assault.
It’s critical to remind employees and supervisors that workplace harassment of any kind—including same-sex harassment—is prohibited. Be sure to thoroughly investigate complaints and take appropriate disciplinary measures against the offenders. Failing to take remedial steps could suggest that you approved of the misconduct, which may leave you vulnerable to a punitive damages award.