The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P began working as an associate attorney for Ozer & Mullen, P.C. (D's law firm). During his employment, P received three merit raises, the last of which was awarded on February 15, 1992, eleven days prior to his termination. On February 19, 1992, P, who is homosexual, learned that his partner was diagnosed with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). P's physician advised him that he should be tested for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) immediately. P determined that he could not effectively represent a client in a deposition that afternoon and an arbitration hearing the following day. P subsequently telephoned his secretary and attempted to arrange for a colleague to fill in for him at the deposition and hearing. P's secretary and another staff member told D about P's telephone call. P and D subsequently spoke twice on the telephone. During the second conversation, P decided that he would disclose his situation to D. P asked D to keep the information he was about to disclose confidential, but D made no reply. P then told D that he was homosexual, that his partner had been diagnosed with AIDS, and that he needed to be tested for HIV. D responded by stating that he would handle the deposition and arbitration hearing and that P should 'do what [he needed] to do.' D telephoned his wife and told her of P's disclosure. D informed the law firm's office manager about P's situation and discussed P's disclosure with two of the law firm's secretaries. On February 21, 1992, P returned to the office and became upset when he learned that everyone in the law firm knew about his situation. D met with P and told him that D had not agreed to keep P's disclosure confidential. One week after P made the disclosure, P was fired. The law firm asserted that P was terminated due to the law firm's poor financial circumstances. P filed suit claiming wrongful discharge and invasion of privacy. P asserted in part that D violated his right to privacy by disseminating private facts which P had revealed and requested remain confidential. The jury set compensatory damages at $30,841 for the wrongful discharge claim and $20,000 for the invasion of privacy claim, and awarded exemplary damages in the sum of $40,000. D appealed arguing in part that the invasion of privacy claim should be reversed because (a) Colorado does not recognize a tort for invasion of privacy in the nature of 'unreasonable publicity given to the life of another'; (b) the evidence in this case did not support a claim for invasion of privacy; and (c) the jury instructions for the invasion of privacy claim were incorrect. The court of appeals affirmed. The court of appeals recognized an invasion of privacy tort claim based on unreasonable publicity given to one's private life and found that the jury instructions regarding this claim did not constitute reversible error. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.