Dep't of Labor v. McConnell, 305 Ga. 812

Summary

The Georgia Supreme Court held that the Georgia Torts Claims Act waived the State's sovereign immunity for claims arising from a Department of Labor employee's disclosure of personal information within the scope of employment. The Court nevertheless affirmed dismissal because the complaint failed to state claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or invasion of privacy. The Court disapproved prior language recognizing a general duty owed by everyone to avoid subjecting others to an unreasonable risk of harm.

Holdings

1. The GTCA waived the State's sovereign immunity from McConnell's tort claims because the claims arose from conduct by a state employee acting within the scope of employment and did not fall within an express statutory exception or limitation.
2. The complaint failed to state a negligence claim because McConnell did not establish that the Department owed a duty to protect the information against negligent disclosure.
3. The complaint failed to state a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim because neither the Georgia Constitution's Trustee Clause nor the alleged submission of personal information to obtain government benefits established a fiduciary duty under the pleaded facts.
4. The complaint failed to state a claim for invasion of privacy through public disclosure of embarrassing private facts because the disclosed identifying information did not ordinarily affect reputation and was not alleged to be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Georgia Tort Claims Act waived the State's sovereign immunity for McConnell's tort claims arising from a state employee's conduct within the scope of employment.
2. Whether the complaint stated a negligence claim based on an alleged duty to safeguard personal information.
3. Whether the complaint stated a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim under the Georgia Constitution's Trustee Clause or based on a confidential relationship.
4. Whether the complaint stated a claim for invasion of privacy through public disclosure of embarrassing private facts.

Disposition

affirmed