Doe v. Phelan, 77 N.Y.2d 452 (1991)
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of a constitutional right to privacy, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the disclosure of private information by a government official served no legitimate governmental interest.
Summary
Plaintiff sued the Town Chief of Police, Phelan, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of her constitutional right to privacy. She claimed Phelan disclosed a supporting deposition detailing her allegations of sexual abuse by her father (a town employee) to the Town Board after assuring her it would remain confidential. The Town Board reviewed the deposition in executive session to assess potential disciplinary action against the father. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claim, holding that the disclosure served a legitimate governmental interest in assessing the fitness of its employee, negating the privacy claim.
Facts
Plaintiff provided a supporting deposition to the police detailing allegations of sexual abuse by her father, a town employee. She claims she received assurances that her name and address would remain confidential to those involved in the criminal investigation. Defendant Phelan, the Town Chief of Police, provided an unredacted version of the deposition to the Town Board. The Town Board requested and reviewed the deposition in executive session. The stated purpose was to evaluate potential disciplinary actions against the plaintiff’s father in his role as a town employee.
Procedural History
Plaintiff commenced a tort action against Phelan, alleging a violation of her right to privacy under the Federal Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The lower courts dismissed the § 1983 claim. Plaintiff appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the dismissal of her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was erroneous. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, dismissing the claim.
Issue(s)
Whether the disclosure of plaintiff’s supporting deposition by the Town Chief of Police to the Town Board, for the purpose of assessing the fitness of a town employee, constitutes a violation of a federally protected right to privacy actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Holding
No, because the disclosure of the plaintiff’s supporting deposition served a legitimate governmental interest, and therefore did not violate a federally protected right to privacy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must demonstrate conduct by a person acting under color of law that deprived the injured party of a right, privilege, or immunity guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The court acknowledged that some lower federal courts have recognized a constitutionally secured privacy right that prohibits government officials from gratuitously disclosing highly private or intimate information. However, the court distinguished those cases, noting that they