When a ski-resort employee was sexually assaulted in an employee lounge, Snowbird Corp. security officials caught the criminal act on tape. They then showed the surveillance video to others in an attempt to identify the man. The victim believed this was an invasion of her privacy.
The woman filed suit in September 1997 in 3rd District Court, but a judge dismissed the lawsuit. She then appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, which on Tuesday upheld the trial court's dismissal of the privacy claim.
In the same ruling, the court also said that, under the Workers' Compensation Act, the woman has the right to seek reimbursement for counseling fees as they relate to the assault.
The case stems from a May 24, 1996, incident in which the woman, a Snowbird banquet server, was taking a break between shifts. A man — who has never been identified — entered the lounge area and sexually assaulted her, the ruling states.
In the course of a police investigation, the video was shown to 10 people, including Snowbird public safety officials and managers who ruled out the possibility the man was an employee of the ski resort. A Sandy police officer and Sandy rape victim also viewed the tape to determine if the assailant in both cases was the same, court documents state.
Although the woman's suit contended Snowbird carelessly allowed numerous people to view the video, the court determined it did not constitute "public disclosure," which is a necessary element in privacy claims.
"Snowbird showed the video to a discrete number of persons for the legitimate purposes of a criminal investigation," said the unanimous ruling, written by Justice Matthew Durrant. Furthermore, the woman offered "no evidence specifically identifying anyone who saw the video who had no legitimate reason for viewing it."
The 1997 lawsuit also cited a breach of contract between the woman and a Snowbird human-resources director, who allegedly told the woman the ski resort would cover her therapy costs. Snowbird claimed the human-resources director did not have the authority to contract on behalf of the company.
The Utah Supreme Court disagreed, saying the director was "the person presumptively in charge of explaining and, when necessary, arranging for employee benefits." The therapy is also covered under the Workers' Compensation Act, which covers mental and physical injuries sustained on the job, the ruling states.
The case is on its way back to 3rd District Court, where the therapy costs will once again be addressed.
E-MAIL: awelling@desnews.com