Disclosure Of Confidential Information In Violation Of Employer's Policy Was Not Protected "Opposition" Under Title VII
 

This case required the 6^th Circuit to address the scope of protection that should be afforded to employees who disseminate confidential documents in violation of their employer's privacy policy in the context of employment-related litigation.

In December of 2005, Kathleen Niswander's employment with The Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) was terminated after CIC learned that Niswander had delivered confidential, proprietary documents to her lawyers in a class-action lawsuit against CIC. She was fired for breaching the company's Privacy Policy and Code of Conduct. This caused Niswander to file a separate lawsuit against CIC, alleging retaliation under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The district court granted summary judgment for CIC.  On appeal, Niswander argued that because she delivered the documents in question at the request of her attorneys in the class-action lawsuit, her actions were protected activity for which she could not be fired under the EPA and Title VII.  Rejecting those arguments, the 6^th Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for CIC, holding that:  (1) the document disclosure was not reasonable and thus did not constitute protected “opposition” under Title VII retaliation provision; and (2) CIC’s proffered reason for termination, i.e. violation of privacy policy, was not pretextual.

Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

Read the case.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.