The court determined that the confidential documents were not related to the retaliation lawsuit. Kathy Niswander admitted that they were not proof of retaliation, but were intended to trigger her memory of specific instances of retaliation. The court said this admission was fatal to her claim that her termination for disclosing the documents was retaliation.
In 2000, Niswander joined a class action lawsuit that claimed the insurance company discrimination against women employees. She alleged that after she joined the suit, her supervisor began retaliating against her and the company took no action when she complained of the retaliatory acts.
At the request of the discrimination suit attorneys, Niswander delivered numerous documents, some of which were copies of e-mails from her supervisors related to her job performance, but some were claim-file documents that included confidential personal information of insured individuals. She said the claim-file documents were delivered in order to help trigger Niswander’s memory of instances of alleged retaliation.
Niswander then filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming the company retaliated against her for activities that were protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. A district court sided with CIC, and the appellate court affirmed its decision.
The opinion in Niswander v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company is here .
« SPARK Updates 403(b) Info Sharing Practices to Reflect DTCC Project